Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

12
  • 13
    Not to mention that zlib doesn't have support for the extension, and even if it did, the CRC32 instruction in SSE 4.2 uses the polynomial 1EDC6F41, and the gzip format uses the polynomial EDB88320 - totally different algorithms, effectively. Commented Oct 20, 2009 at 15:59
  • 7
    And since deflate is faster, why is SO using gzip? Commented Sep 16, 2010 at 12:51
  • 41
    Well, this answer turns out to be incorrect ... see: zoompf.com/blog/2012/02/lose-the-wait-http-compression ... in particular client have 2 ways they can "interpret" deflate, headerless/checksumless and with zlib header. The implementation across browsers of a correct deflate is bad. deflate should be avoided. Commented Mar 24, 2012 at 23:36
  • 5
    @sam additionally I just re-ran the benchmarks and on a modern Intel chip, I get gzip 1441/692 and deflate 1286/531. Second number is decompress, first is compress. So deflate is still faster, do your benchmarks show otherwise? (I agree it may not be useful for other reasons, but the answer is correct, deflate is faster..) Commented Mar 27, 2012 at 7:04
  • 7
    @JeffAtwood but the question wasn't faster? Commented May 15, 2012 at 21:44