4 ms·
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%)
by 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 agoZip.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 agoSorry, 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%