|
|
|
@ -14,3 +14,31 @@ With pixz, both these problems can eventually be solved. Currently these pixz to
|
|
|
|
|
* read INPUT.tpxz PATH: Efficiently extracts a single file from a tarball compressed by 'write'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* list [-t] INPUT.xz: Lists the xz blocks present within any .xz file. Optionally also lists a file index as stored by 'write'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compare to:
|
|
|
|
|
plzip
|
|
|
|
|
* About equally complex, efficient
|
|
|
|
|
* lzip format seems less-used
|
|
|
|
|
* Version 1 is theoretically indexable...I think
|
|
|
|
|
ChopZip
|
|
|
|
|
* Python, much simpler
|
|
|
|
|
* More flexible, supports arbitrary compression programs
|
|
|
|
|
* Uses streams instead of blocks, not indexable
|
|
|
|
|
* Splits input and then combines output, much higher disk usage
|
|
|
|
|
pxz
|
|
|
|
|
* Simpler code
|
|
|
|
|
* Uses OpenMP instead of pthreads
|
|
|
|
|
* Uses streams instead of blocks, not indexable
|
|
|
|
|
* Uses temp files and doesn't combine them until the whole file is compressed, high disk/memory usage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparable tools for other compression algorithms:
|
|
|
|
|
pbzip2
|
|
|
|
|
* Not indexable
|
|
|
|
|
* Appears slow
|
|
|
|
|
* bzip2 algorithm is non-ideal
|
|
|
|
|
pigz
|
|
|
|
|
* Not indexable
|
|
|
|
|
dictzip
|
|
|
|
|
* Not parallel
|
|
|
|
|