3 ms·
Try combining it with --long My use cases are usually source code, SQL dumps and log files. Sometimes xz gave marginally better results, but difference was we
by Szpadel 1y ago
Try combining it with --long
My use cases are usually source code, SQL dumps and log files.
Sometimes xz gave marginally better results, but difference was well below 1%
- soruly 1y agothanks for the tips. As my data has very low entropy, both can compress down to 3-4% of original size, but xz is a lot faster in compression. raw size: 9612344 B zstd --ultra -22 --long=31 => 376181 B (3.91% original, 4.088s compress, 0.013s decompress) xz -z -9 xml => 353700 B (3.68% original, 0.729s compress, 0.032s decompress) zstd -17 --long=31 could match the compression time of xz, but the size is bigger (405602 B, 4.22% original) If you compare only the compressed size (not to the original size), .zst would be about 6-15% larger than .xz