Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: LZPM 0.02 available!

  1. #1
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    Okay, here is a new version of LZPM. Still very draft, but it needs to be tested plus I want to make a small break in development to think more deeply on the new LZ conception and implementation details...

    Enjoy anyway!



    Link:
    lzpm002.zip (26 KB)


  2. #2
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Thanks Ilia!

  3. #3
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quick test...

    A10.jpg > 832,328
    AcroRd32.exe > 1,634,409
    english.dic > 1,016,014
    FlashMX.pdf > 3,768,244
    FP.LOG > 805,204
    MSO97.DLL > 2,012,007
    ohs.doc > 836,949
    rafale.bmp > 1,104,232
    vcfiu.hlp > 726,222
    world95.txt > 619,408

    Total = 13,355,017 bytes


    ENWIK8:

    Compressed Size = 29,274,461 bytes
    Compression Time = 00:03:29.360

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    LZPM 0.02 outcompresses QUAD 1.02a on my testset!

    Some datas:
    File_QUAD1.12__LZPM0.02
    PDF - 714,908 - 709,072
    PNG - 245,756 - 241,392
    PPS - 644,426 - 627,749

    (almost seems like the first P stands for Precompressed )

  5. #5
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    Looks like LZPM is more powerful than QUAD 1.12 with Max mode. I've made many tests and LZPM often wins! For myself, LZPM is just further evolution of QUAD (quad2 ). But the main thing is really fast decompression. By the way, how fast LZPM works on your test, BF?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by encode
    Looks like LZPM is more powerful than QUAD 1.12 with Max mode. Ive made many tests and LZPM often wins! For myself, LZPM is just further evolution of QUAD (quad2 ). But the main thing is really fast decompression. By the way, how fast LZPM works on your test, BF?
    Outputs on my testset:
    13,694,827 bytes - LZPM 0.02
    13,457,607 bytes - QUAD 1.12 -x

    LZPMs speed - 1,125 kB/s compression / 9,287 kB/s decompression

  7. #7
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    Pretty cool!

    Tech comparison of LZPM and QUAD

    LZ layer
    LZPM has much stronger LZ coder. However, it uses non-optimal parsing (Lazy Matching) and thus keeps some air in compressed files. Overall, the scheme used with LZPM must be more efficient on binary data, at the same time QUAD's approach is better for text files. Anyway, with LZPM I've made many things and finally LZPM's scheme must be better on almost files. In addition, keep in mind that LZPM still has no EXE filter. Firstly, I not included this filter to see performance of the pure engine and not to overload the source code and keep all eyes on the main compression. Secondly, in some cases the EXE filter can only hurt compression, in this case preferable to keep standalone engine.

    LZ-output coding
    QUAD has more stronger LZ-output encoder - order-2-0 PPM. Even without any LZ part such encoder can acheive some compression. LZPM has very simple encoder, newly designed, very fast and efficient. One important thing that LZPM is much more stable on precompressed files - simply look at A10.jpg compression results - QUAD can't compress this file, LZPM compresses it very well, compared to others programs.

    Concluding, the LZPM is the future. The bright future. I very often compare my LZPM to mcomp algorithms like LZ77 and ROLZ2. LZ77 from mcomp is just some kind of clone of LZMA. What can I say, my programs becomes more and more competitive. LZPM is the proof. I can say that even at this early stage of development it outperforms many compressors - without cheating like tunable parameters, without tons of memory...
    In addition, I continue playing with my LZARI - to find additional ideas and to compare the performance of pure LZ77 vs. tricky LZ77. To be honest, on some files like PAK0.PAK (QUAKE 2 resources) improved LZARI already outperforms LZPM, however, on almost files LZPM is one step ahead.

    Never stop working... Never stop thinking... 24/7... Have a nice day!


  8. #8
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    According to the Large Text Compression Benchmark, LZPM 0.02 is faster than LZMA!

    LZPM 0.02 decompresses ENWIK9 within 59 seconds, at the same time LZMA decompresses it within 63 seconds.

    http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html#2545


  9. #9
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Awesome!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by encode
    LZPM 0.02 is faster than LZMA!
    Congratz! Long live the LZPM

  11. #11
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    <u>Hash comparison.</u>
    LZPM 0.02 was used with just different hash functions.

    calgary.tar
    crc16: 899,480 bytes
    current: 899,486 bytes
    bernstein: 899,514 bytes

    reaktor.exe
    current: 2,249,335 bytes
    bernstein: 2,249,339 bytes
    crc16: 2,249,507 bytes

    world95.txt
    current: 619,408 bytes
    crc16: 619,417 bytes
    bernstein: 619,451 bytes

    As you can see, current hash function does very well even compared to the ANSI CRC-16.


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •