Compare fflate with lzwcompress

[Pauloper1]

Fflate

• For randomly generated strings , Average time is considered of n number of tests runI.e. each test would produce new generated random string and this string is compressed and the time taken to compressed is calculated.

• The tests for 100 randomly generated strings of length 100 or 1000 didn’t make sense since the Average time taken was less than the time taken for individual tests

• Also it seems for fflate takes more time to compress string for first few string and then subsequently time taken drops

Eg1 Eg2

For LWZ compress

• Compared to fflate , LWZ has higher Average time taken
• Similar to fflate , the LWZ takes more time to compress string for first few string and then subsequently time taken drops

For now, fflate leads

[Pauloper1]

Also hauffmanCompression is behaving differently for randomly generated strings but seems to work for hard-coded string

[andinus]

Can you link to the test script as well? Also, testing compression algorithms on randomly generated strings just gives us worst case result.

[andinus]

Okay, so the consensus is to use fflate.