3 ms·
Because we don't perceive time logarithmically. 10 sec compression is 10 times worse than 100 sec compression. So looking at the first chart, lpaq9i and durilc
by rorrr2 13y ago
Because we don't perceive time logarithmically. 10 sec compression is 10 times worse than 100 sec compression.
So looking at the first chart, lpaq9i and durilca4linux points are right next to each other, while in realty durilca4linux is 530sec slower.
- fdej 13y agoI don't see the problem. It's obvious what the chart conveys if you stop to think for a moment (at least speaking for myself, I'm used to looking at graphs with a logarithmic time scale, and didn't think about it). In fact, it's reasonable that a linear improvement in compressed size should require an exponential increase in time and memory.