4 ms·

Pretty cool, but the thought of inflate/deflate running in Javascript makes me cringe. How fast is this?

by udp 15y ago

fl3x 15y ago
Edit: The numbers are only for the C implementation so they don't add much to the discussion. Sorry for posting too quickly! I don't know about this library in particular, but there's some numbers available on http://liblzg.bitsnbites.eu/ http://liblzg.bitsnbites.eu/ for a similar library. (The same author has also made a library for self extracting javascript code: http://crunchme.bitsnbites.eu/ http://crunchme.bitsnbites.eu/. Pretty cool, but probably not that useful outside of the demo scene.)
cleverjake 15y ago
While I haven't used this in production, I can say that for zipping up stuff that was already generated client side it is usually quicker than sending the data to the server to be zipped, then getting it back. While this seems like a just-because-its-cool sort of hack, it actually has awesome implications. Zipped file creation from offline apps? Yes please.
bradleyland 15y ago
I just tested with a 42 MB text log file under OS X 10.7.2. Using zip 3.0: $ time zip logfile.zip logfile.log adding: logfile.log (deflated 89%) real 0m1.170s user 0m0.947s sys 0m0.030s Resulting file size: 4,551,020 bytes Using Chrome 16.0.912.77: 4.7s - 1st drop 5.5s - 2nd drop 5.2s - 3rd drop 5.1s - 4th drop Average 5.125s (timed using stopwatch) Resulting file size: 4,547,885 bytes Size: Advantage Zip.js by 3,135 bytes (roughly 3k; 6.8% better than zip) Speed: Advantage zip by 3.955s (77% better than Zip.js)
- halter73 15y ago
  Zip.js only has a .069% size advantage over zip 3.0 given your numbers (4,551,020 bytes & 4,547,885 bytes respectively). Your calculation of 6.8% better than zip just seemed too impressive.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    Sorry, was off by a factor of 100. Showing the math: zip = 4,551,020 zipjs = 4,547,885 diff = zip - zipjs => 3,135 bytes pctng_diff = diff/zip × 100 => 0.0688856564%

Pretty cool, but the thought of inflate/deflate running in Javascript makes me cringe. How fast is this?

by udp 15y ago

Pretty cool, but the thought of inflate/deflate running in Javascript makes me cringe. How fast is this?

fl3x 15y ago

Edit: The numbers are only for the C implementation so they don't add much to the discussion. Sorry for posting too quickly! I don't know about this library in particular, but there's some numbers available on http://liblzg.bitsnbites.eu/ http://liblzg.bitsnbites.eu/ for a similar library. (The same author has also made a library for self extracting javascript code: http://crunchme.bitsnbites.eu/ http://crunchme.bitsnbites.eu/. Pretty cool, but probably not that useful outside of the demo scene.)

cleverjake 15y ago

While I haven't used this in production, I can say that for zipping up stuff that was already generated client side it is usually quicker than sending the data to the server to be zipped, then getting it back. While this seems like a just-because-its-cool sort of hack, it actually has awesome implications. Zipped file creation from offline apps? Yes please.

bradleyland 15y ago

I just tested with a 42 MB text log file under OS X 10.7.2. Using zip 3.0: $ time zip logfile.zip logfile.log adding: logfile.log (deflated 89%) real 0m1.170s user 0m0.947s sys 0m0.030s Resulting file size: 4,551,020 bytes Using Chrome 16.0.912.77: 4.7s - 1st drop 5.5s - 2nd drop 5.2s - 3rd drop 5.1s - 4th drop Average 5.125s (timed using stopwatch) Resulting file size: 4,547,885 bytes Size: Advantage Zip.js by 3,135 bytes (roughly 3k; 6.8% better than zip) Speed: Advantage zip by 3.955s (77% better than Zip.js)

halter73 15y ago
Zip.js only has a .069% size advantage over zip 3.0 given your numbers (4,551,020 bytes & 4,547,885 bytes respectively). Your calculation of 6.8% better than zip just seemed too impressive.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  Sorry, was off by a factor of 100. Showing the math: zip = 4,551,020 zipjs = 4,547,885 diff = zip - zipjs => 3,135 bytes pctng_diff = diff/zip × 100 => 0.0688856564%