On 18 April 2013 06:25, Masashi UMEZAWA <masashi.umezawa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Actually, I have never noticed that you have LZ4 bindings already. It is indeed a great news! I would never have started sqnappy if I knew the fact. As you say, the project has a similar goal.
Anyway, it is good to have another option.
Some Sqnappy characteristics: - it has a minimum dependency (it does not use FFI, NativeBoost) so that it can be run on older images
- having a separate plugin/VM , which users always have trouble dealing wih :)
- Streaming format support (to be soon) - you can compress very big data with relatively small memory footprint.
Best regards,
2013/4/18 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com>:
Hi,
I was checking https://github.com/mumez/sqnappy. Some time ago I wrote bindings for LZ4: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~marianopeck/LZ4
Do you know which are the differences?
It looks both are intended for the same purpose: speed in decompression/compression over compression ratio. From what I can see in http://fastcompression.blogspot.fr/p/lz4.html it says encoding 555 MB/s decoding 1.80 GB/ while in https://code.google.com/p/snappy/ it says "Snappy compresses at about 250 MB/sec or more and decompresses at about 500 MB/sec or more."
So...doesn't LZ4 seem to be faster than sqnappy? And I already wrote the bindings for LZ4...so I was wondering that...
Best regards,
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com -- [:masashi | ^umezawa]
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.