W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > August 2020

Comparison of compression algorithms

From: Ulf Bjorkengren <ulfbjorkengren@geotab.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:25:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHfMbK8Fs36hCTmCb=i69uBEoWjfoX7=JezhQRe2FR45OgPz+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
I tried some online compression tools to see what kind of compression
standard compression algorithms can achieve on a typical Gen2 response
payload, shown below.
The results show that they do not perform well on this type of short
payloads, and cannot compete with a tailormade algorithm.
As a comparison, version two of the proprietary algorithm I mentioned in
the presentation will compress the same payload to 17 bytes.
If there is interest for it, this algorithm will be implemented and
available on
https://github.com/MEAE-GOT/W3C_VehicleSignalInterfaceImpl
in both a Go impl and a JS impl.

BR
Ulf

Payload:
{“action”:”get”, “timestamp”:”2020-08-25T13:37:00Z”, “value”:”123”,
“requestId”:”999”}
The above payload is 86 chars.

http://www.txtwizard.net/compression
GZ: Execution time: 11875 us Compression ratio: 112 % Original size: 118
bytes Result size: 105 bytes
DEFLATE: Execution time: 16811 us Compression ratio: 127 % Original size:
118 bytes Result size: 93 bytes

https://www.danstools.com/gzip-compress-decompress/
GZIP: 91 bytes

https://www.dcode.fr/lzw-compression
LZW: 72 bytes

-- 
Ulf Bjorkengren
*Geotab*
Senior Connectivity Strategist | Ph. D.
Mobile +45 53562142
Visit www.geotab.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 09:23:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 26 August 2020 09:23:51 UTC