3 ms·
> If you are bottle-necked by reading data (eg over networks or slow storage), zstd will be faster to decompress since you are transferring less data. This sho
by arinlen 4y ago
> If you are bottle-necked by reading data (eg over networks or slow storage), zstd will be faster to decompress since you are transferring less data.
This should be stressed. Benchmarks show zstd's compression ratio being 75% of lz4's. Pushing 25% less data over a network is enough to win any real-world test, not to mention the impact it has on operational costs.
- woobilicious 4y agoI have this pathological example, I have a 30GB journal dump from bcachefs, and compressed it down with lz4 and zstd to a sata SSD, the compression ratios are 6.8% and 3% respectively (and this with default level 3!), it takes 14s to ripgrep through the lz4 version, and 11s with the zstd version. So even at 500MB/s zstd is faster for decompression.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoLZ4 requires about 2gb/s to be competitive on any relatively recent desktop/laptop cpu