On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Huchev <hugochevrain(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For a C implementation, it could interesting to consider LZ4 algorithm, since
> it is written natively in this language. In contrast, Snappy has been ported
> to C by Andy from the original C++ Google code, which lso translate into
> less extensive usage and tests.
From what I can tell, the C implementation of snappy has more tests
than this LZ4 implementation, including a fuzz tester. It's a
maintained part of Linux as well, and used for btrfs --- this is why
it was ported. The high compression version of LZ4 is apparently
LGPL. And, finally, there is the issue of patents: snappy has several
multi-billion dollar companies that can be held liable (originator
Google, as well as anyone connected to Linux), and to the best of my
knowledge, nobody has been held to extortion yet.
Consider me unconvinced as to this line of argument.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2012-04-04 23:22:59|
|Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2012-04-04 23:06:54|
|Subject: Re: patch: improve SLRU replacement algorithm|