3 ms·
> However, it only supports up to level 3 when compressing data, so it can't be used as a drop-in replacement for gzip. [EDIT: I misread a benchmark result [1]
by lifthrasiir 4y ago
> However, it only supports up to level 3 when compressing data, so it can't be used as a drop-in replacement for gzip.
[EDIT: I misread a benchmark result [1] and wrongly concluded that igzip -3 is better than gzip -9, in reality it is somewhere in the middle of -1 and -9.]
[1] https://encode.su/threads/3398-Sequence-Compression-Benchmark?p=66191&viewfull=1#post66191 https://encode.su/threads/3398-Sequence-Compression-Benchmar...
- optionalsquid 4y agoThat benchmark seems to be comparing igzip with gzip -1, since the reported gzip output size is 42298786 bytes and not 36548933 bytes (from the earlier benchmarks). My own experience based mostly on FASTQ/text data is that igzip -3 gives results very similar to gzip -3.
- lifthrasiir 4y agoOops! Yes, you are correct. I confused it with an other reply with level 9 benchmarks, please disregard the parent comment.