Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
When finally I can make a decision, which may include leaving bits/byte
as is, I'll release 1.20-pre2. ;-)
I have visited some benchmark pages and I have noticed that:
1) Most show the complete file sizes.
2) None measure the ratio as bits/byte.
3) Percentage seems more common than decimal, specially when embedded
in text.
This benchmark shows the inverse compression ratio in decimal in the
table, but as a percentage in the text:
http://www.scivision.co/lzip-compression-with-tar-performance/
This benchmark shows the inverse compression ratio as a decimal fraction
(.1206).
http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html
These benchmarks show the inverse compression ratio as a percentage
(11.01%):
http://dbahire.com/que-herramienta-de-compresion-deberia-usar-para-las-copias-de-seguridad-de-mi-base-de-datos/
http://martin-steigerwald.de/computer/programme/packbench/index.html
Conclusion: ratio seems more useful than bits/byte, and percentage is
fine to use.
Best regards,
Antonio.
_______________________________________________
Lzip-bug mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lzip-bug
