summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/algorithm.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu>2011-09-09 23:17:33 -0700
committerMark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu>2011-09-09 23:17:33 -0700
commit7850e4e406dce1f7a819297eeb151d1ca18e7cd9 (patch)
treed4befddacae46b06c4924193904de533099610b4 /algorithm.txt
parentebd3c2c0e734fc99a1360014ea52ed04fe6aade4 (diff)
downloadzlib-1.0.7.tar.gz
zlib-1.0.7.tar.bz2
zlib-1.0.7.zip
zlib 1.0.7v1.0.7
Diffstat (limited to '')
-rw-r--r--algorithm.txt (renamed from algorithm.doc)122
1 files changed, 115 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/algorithm.doc b/algorithm.txt
index 01902af..cdc830b 100644
--- a/algorithm.doc
+++ b/algorithm.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
11. Compression algorithm (deflate) 11. Compression algorithm (deflate)
2 2
3The deflation algorithm used by zlib (also zip and gzip) is a variation of 3The deflation algorithm used by gzip (also zip and zlib) is a variation of
4LZ77 (Lempel-Ziv 1977, see reference below). It finds duplicated strings in 4LZ77 (Lempel-Ziv 1977, see reference below). It finds duplicated strings in
5the input data. The second occurrence of a string is replaced by a 5the input data. The second occurrence of a string is replaced by a
6pointer to the previous string, in the form of a pair (distance, 6pointer to the previous string, in the form of a pair (distance,
@@ -35,12 +35,12 @@ parameter of deflateInit). So deflate() does not always find the longest
35possible match but generally finds a match which is long enough. 35possible match but generally finds a match which is long enough.
36 36
37deflate() also defers the selection of matches with a lazy evaluation 37deflate() also defers the selection of matches with a lazy evaluation
38mechanism. After a match of length N has been found, deflate() searches for a 38mechanism. After a match of length N has been found, deflate() searches for
39longer match at the next input byte. If a longer match is found, the 39a longer match at the next input byte. If a longer match is found, the
40previous match is truncated to a length of one (thus producing a single 40previous match is truncated to a length of one (thus producing a single
41literal byte) and the longer match is emitted afterwards. Otherwise, 41literal byte) and the process of lazy evaluation begins again. Otherwise,
42the original match is kept, and the next match search is attempted only 42the original match is kept, and the next match search is attempted only N
43N steps later. 43steps later.
44 44
45The lazy match evaluation is also subject to a runtime parameter. If 45The lazy match evaluation is also subject to a runtime parameter. If
46the current match is long enough, deflate() reduces the search for a longer 46the current match is long enough, deflate() reduces the search for a longer
@@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ but saves time since there are both fewer insertions and fewer searches.
57 57
582. Decompression algorithm (inflate) 582. Decompression algorithm (inflate)
59 59
602.1 Introduction
61
60The real question is, given a Huffman tree, how to decode fast. The most 62The real question is, given a Huffman tree, how to decode fast. The most
61important realization is that shorter codes are much more common than 63important realization is that shorter codes are much more common than
62longer codes, so pay attention to decoding the short codes fast, and let 64longer codes, so pay attention to decoding the short codes fast, and let
@@ -91,8 +93,114 @@ interesting to see if optimizing the first level table for other
91applications gave values within a bit or two of the flat code size. 93applications gave values within a bit or two of the flat code size.
92 94
93 95
962.2 More details on the inflate table lookup
97
98Ok, you want to know what this cleverly obfuscated inflate tree actually
99looks like. You are correct that it's not a Huffman tree. It is simply a
100lookup table for the first, let's say, nine bits of a Huffman symbol. The
101symbol could be as short as one bit or as long as 15 bits. If a particular
102symbol is shorter than nine bits, then that symbol's translation is duplicated
103in all those entries that start with that symbol's bits. For example, if the
104symbol is four bits, then it's duplicated 32 times in a nine-bit table. If a
105symbol is nine bits long, it appears in the table once.
106
107If the symbol is longer than nine bits, then that entry in the table points
108to another similar table for the remaining bits. Again, there are duplicated
109entries as needed. The idea is that most of the time the symbol will be short
110and there will only be one table look up. (That's whole idea behind data
111compression in the first place.) For the less frequent long symbols, there
112will be two lookups. If you had a compression method with really long
113symbols, you could have as many levels of lookups as is efficient. For
114inflate, two is enough.
115
116So a table entry either points to another table (in which case nine bits in
117the above example are gobbled), or it contains the translation for the symbol
118and the number of bits to gobble. Then you start again with the next
119ungobbled bit.
120
121You may wonder: why not just have one lookup table for how ever many bits the
122longest symbol is? The reason is that if you do that, you end up spending
123more time filling in duplicate symbol entries than you do actually decoding.
124At least for deflate's output that generates new trees every several 10's of
125kbytes. You can imagine that filling in a 2^15 entry table for a 15-bit code
126would take too long if you're only decoding several thousand symbols. At the
127other extreme, you could make a new table for every bit in the code. In fact,
128that's essentially a Huffman tree. But then you spend two much time
129traversing the tree while decoding, even for short symbols.
130
131So the number of bits for the first lookup table is a trade of the time to
132fill out the table vs. the time spent looking at the second level and above of
133the table.
134
135Here is an example, scaled down:
136
137The code being decoded, with 10 symbols, from 1 to 6 bits long:
138
139A: 0
140B: 10
141C: 1100
142D: 11010
143E: 11011
144F: 11100
145G: 11101
146H: 11110
147I: 111110
148J: 111111
149
150Let's make the first table three bits long (eight entries):
151
152000: A,1
153001: A,1
154010: A,1
155011: A,1
156100: B,2
157101: B,2
158110: -> table X (gobble 3 bits)
159111: -> table Y (gobble 3 bits)
160
161Each entry is what the bits decode to and how many bits that is, i.e. how
162many bits to gobble. Or the entry points to another table, with the number of
163bits to gobble implicit in the size of the table.
164
165Table X is two bits long since the longest code starting with 110 is five bits
166long:
167
16800: C,1
16901: C,1
17010: D,2
17111: E,2
172
173Table Y is three bits long since the longest code starting with 111 is six
174bits long:
175
176000: F,2
177001: F,2
178010: G,2
179011: G,2
180100: H,2
181101: H,2
182110: I,3
183111: J,3
184
185So what we have here are three tables with a total of 20 entries that had to
186be constructed. That's compared to 64 entries for a single table. Or
187compared to 16 entries for a Huffman tree (six two entry tables and one four
188entry table). Assuming that the code ideally represents the probability of
189the symbols, it takes on the average 1.25 lookups per symbol. That's compared
190to one lookup for the single table, or 1.66 lookups per symbol for the
191Huffman tree.
192
193There, I think that gives you a picture of what's going on. For inflate, the
194meaning of a particular symbol is often more than just a letter. It can be a
195byte (a "literal"), or it can be either a length or a distance which
196indicates a base value and a number of bits to fetch after the code that is
197added to the base value. Or it might be the special end-of-block code. The
198data structures created in inftrees.c try to encode all that information
199compactly in the tables.
200
201
94Jean-loup Gailly Mark Adler 202Jean-loup Gailly Mark Adler
95gzip@prep.ai.mit.edu madler@alumni.caltech.edu 203jloup@gzip.org madler@alumni.caltech.edu
96 204
97 205
98References: 206References: