pigz

Pros of pgzip

• Written in Go, offering better cross-platform compatibility and easier integration with Go projects
• Provides a more flexible API, allowing for custom compression levels and concurrent compression of multiple files
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of pgzip

• Generally slower compression speed compared to pigz, especially for single-threaded operations
• May consume more memory, particularly when compressing large files or using high concurrency
• Less mature and battle-tested compared to the long-established pigz

Code Comparison

pgzip:

import "github.com/klauspost/pgzip"

w := pgzip.NewWriter(file)
w.Write(data)
w.Close()

pigz:

#include "pigz.h"

pigz_write(file, data, size);
pigz_close(file);

Additional Notes

Both pgzip and pigz are parallel gzip compression tools, aiming to improve compression speed by utilizing multiple CPU cores. pigz is written in C and is known for its high performance, especially in Unix-like environments. pgzip, being a Go implementation, offers better portability and easier integration into Go-based projects, but may not match pigz's raw speed in all scenarios.

Pros of libdeflate

• Focuses on high-performance compression and decompression algorithms
• Provides a simple C API for easy integration into other projects
• Optimized for both speed and compression ratio

Cons of libdeflate

• Limited to DEFLATE, zlib, and gzip compression formats
• Lacks parallel processing capabilities
• Not designed as a standalone command-line tool

Code comparison

libdeflate:

size_t libdeflate_zlib_compress(struct libdeflate_compressor *compressor,
                                const void *in, size_t in_nbytes,
                                void *out, size_t out_nbytes_avail)

pigz:

int deflate(z_streamp strm, int flush)

libdeflate provides a more straightforward API for compression, while pigz uses the standard zlib interface. libdeflate's API is designed for ease of use and efficiency, whereas pigz focuses on parallel processing and command-line functionality.

Both projects aim to improve compression performance, but they take different approaches. libdeflate emphasizes algorithmic optimizations and a clean API, while pigz focuses on parallelization and maintaining compatibility with gzip. The choice between them depends on specific use cases and integration requirements.

Pros of Brotli

• Higher compression ratios, especially for text-based content
• Optimized for web content, resulting in faster page loads
• Widely supported by modern web browsers

Cons of Brotli

• Slower compression speed compared to Pigz
• Limited to single-threaded compression, unlike Pigz's parallel processing

Code Comparison

Brotli (C++):

BrotliEncoderState* state = BrotliEncoderCreateInstance(nullptr, nullptr, nullptr);
BrotliEncoderSetParameter(state, BROTLI_PARAM_QUALITY, quality);
BrotliEncoderSetParameter(state, BROTLI_PARAM_SIZE_HINT, input_size);
BrotliEncoderCompressStream(state, BROTLI_OPERATION_FINISH, &available_in, &next_in, &available_out, &next_out, &total_out);

Pigz (C):

deflateInit2(&strm, level, Z_DEFLATED, 15 + 16, 8, Z_DEFAULT_STRATEGY);
deflate(&strm, Z_NO_FLUSH);
deflate(&strm, Z_FINISH);
deflateEnd(&strm);

Brotli focuses on achieving higher compression ratios, especially for web content, while Pigz emphasizes speed through parallel processing. Brotli's compression algorithm is more complex, resulting in slower compression times but better compression ratios. Pigz, on the other hand, utilizes multiple threads to achieve faster compression speeds at the cost of slightly lower compression ratios. The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches: Brotli uses a state-based API with quality parameters, while Pigz employs a simpler stream-based API with parallel processing capabilities.

Pros of zstd

• Higher compression ratios, especially for larger files
• Faster decompression speeds
• More versatile with multiple compression levels and dictionary support

Cons of zstd

• Slightly slower compression speeds for small files
• Larger memory footprint during compression

Code comparison

zstd:

size_t ZSTD_compress(void* dst, size_t dstCapacity,
                     const void* src, size_t srcSize,
                     int compressionLevel);

pigz:

int deflate(z_streamp strm, int flush);

Summary

zstd offers superior compression ratios and decompression speeds, making it ideal for larger files and scenarios where read performance is crucial. It also provides more flexibility with various compression levels and dictionary support. However, pigz may have a slight edge in compression speed for small files and uses less memory during compression. The API of zstd is generally simpler to use, as seen in the code comparison, where a single function call can handle compression, unlike the streaming approach of pigz.