On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 03:11:22PM +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: > (2013/10/15 13:33), Amit Kapila wrote: > >Snappy is good mainly for un-compressible data, see the link below: > >http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAZKuFZCOCHsswQM60ioDO_hk12tA7OG3YcJA8v=4yebmoa...@mail.gmail.com > This result was gotten in ARM architecture, it is not general CPU. > Please see detail document. > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1aim6s/lz4_extremely_fast_compression_algorithm/c8y0ew9 > > I found compression algorithm test in HBase. I don't read detail, > but it indicates snnapy algorithm gets best performance. > http://blog.erdemagaoglu.com/post/4605524309/lzo-vs-snappy-vs-lzf-vs-zlib-a-comparison-of > > In fact, most of modern NoSQL storages use snappy. Because it has > good performance and good licence(BSD license). > > >I think it is bit difficult to prove that any one algorithm is best > >for all kind of loads. > I think it is necessary to make best efforts in community than I do > the best choice with strict test. > > Regards, > -- > Mitsumasa KONDO > NTT Open Source Software Center >
Google's lz4 is also a very nice algorithm with 33% better compression performance than snappy and 2X the decompression performance in some benchmarks also with a bsd license: https://code.google.com/p/lz4/ Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
