3 ms·
This is a good point, and yet -- as high as position 24 (out of 208) in the list, we have "bsc-m03 0.4.0" at only ~160ns per byte compressed (compared with most
by ezekiel68 2y ago
This is a good point, and yet -- as high as position 24 (out of 208) in the list, we have "bsc-m03 0.4.0" at only ~160ns per byte compressed (compared with most above it being two or three orders of magnitude slower). Below position 24, there's one in the 20s of ns per byte. Looks like the cost was in the size of the compression program. Not sure if there was any "cheating" going on, hunting for benchmark scores with these two famous test bodies of text.
By comparison, the top contender clocks in at ~240,000 ns per byte (making your point).
- wqweto 2y agoWe use bsc and nanozip for archiving DB backups (usually 1-100GB files) and have not found anything remotely close to these as CPU usage vs compression ratio. c:> bsc.exe e "%~1" "%~1.bsc" -b1000 -m4e1t -M4H20 This uses 3GB of RAM and compresses w/ about 300MB/s but is slow on decompression while c:> nz.exe a -cd -p2 -m1024m "%~1.nz" "%~1" uses about 1GB of RAM and compresses w/ about 250MB/s to worse compression ratios but is much faster than bsc on decompression. Both of these smash zstd and 7-zip on compression and speed -- something like 2x better and 10x faster.