lzbench

Ah I understand. In this benchmark, Zstd's decompression time is 284 MB/s, and Gzip's is 330 MB/s. This benchmark is likely dominated by file IO for the faster decompressors. On the incompressible files, I'd expect decompression of any algorithm to approach the speed of `memcpy()`. And would generally expect zstd's decompression speed to be faster. For example, on a x86 core running at 2GHz, Zstd is decompressing a file at 660 MB/s, and on my M1 at 1276 MB/s. You could measure locally either using a specialized tool like lzbench [0], or for zstd by just running `zstd -b22 --ultra /path/to/file`, which will print the compression ratio, compression speed, and decompression speed. [0] https://github.com/inikep/lzbench

If you want to see a comparison against an even broader set of open source compression algos, this is lzbench (it's linked directly from the ZXC github page) lzbench has added ZXC to its suite. This makes a nice apples to apples comparison possible. https://github.com/inikep/lzbench

latest - sorted by Ratio : https://github.com/inikep/lzbench/blob/master/doc/lzbench20_...

Probably, the results in the table are about 7 years old. For example, the table shows version 1.3.4 for zstd, which indicates that the results are outdated - currently, version 1.5.6 is the latest release ( https://github.com/facebook/zstd/releases/tag/v1.5.6 ) In my opinion, it is better to check the original repository: https://github.com/inikep/lzbench or this: https://github.com/inikep/lzbench/blob/master/doc/lzbench20_...

For a benchmark on a standard set: https://github.com/inikep/lzbench/blob/master/lzbench18_sort... Of course, you may get different results with another dataset. gzip (zlib -6) [ratio=32%] [compr=35Mo/s] [dec=407Mo/s] zstd (zstd -2) [ratio=32%] [compr=356Mo/s] [dec=1067Mo/s] NB1: The default for zstd is -3, but the table only had -2. The difference is probably small. The range is 1-22 for zstd and 1-9 for gzip. NB2: The default program for gzip (at least with Debian) is the executable from zlib. With my workflows, libdeflate-gzip iscompatible and noticably faster. NB3: This benchmark is 2 years old. The latest releases of zstd are much better, see https://github.com/facebook/zstd/releases For a high compression, according to this benchmark xz can do slightly better, if you're willing to pay a 10× penalty on decompression. xz -9 [ratio=23%

Note that a benchmark in the README refers to zstd 1.1.1 and brotli 0.5.2, which are very old (the current versions are zstd 1.5.2 and brotli 1.0.9). The same author maintains lzbench [1] which is more current than the README. It shows that Lizard heavily trades off compression speed and ratio for decompression speed; zstd at the default setting (-3) is expected to be on par with Lizard -45 in terms of ratio, but Lizard would be >10x slower to compress while only ~3x faster to decompress. [1] https://github.com/inikep/lzbench

> 1. decompression is usually not faster than 500MB/s, which is much slower than SSD or network, There are some, but you have to select the right one. https://github.com/inikep/lzbench#benchmarks

> Brotli's fastest compression is slightly faster than zstd's. Come on, this is not serious. Brotli's fastest compression algorithm is still significantly slower than zstd. And more importantly, it compresses _much worse_. For a 3rd party evaluation, one can try [TurboBench](https://github.com/powturbo/TurboBench) or even [lzbench](https://github.com/inikep/lzbench) which are open-sourced. Squash introduces a wrapper layer with distortions which makes it less reliable, and more complex to use and install, quite a pity given the graphical presentation is very good. I'm interested in speed, and in this area, all benchmarks point in the same direction : for a given speed budget, Zstandard offers better ratio (and decompresses much faster).