On 17:55, Mon 10 Mar 08, Martin Nordholts wrote: > That looks very interesting. Do you think you could provide some > benchmarking data of the performance improvements in variuos situations? > It would be useful to have Hi, I used babl/tests/babl_fish_path_dhtml as a simple benchmark. Here are running times of babl_fish_path_dhtml w/o and w/ the patch applied: jheller@voyager ~/projects/gegl/babl/babl/tests $ time ./babl_fish_path_dhtml > babl_fish_path_0.0.20.html real 0m10.463s user 0m9.441s sys 0m0.040s jheller@voyager ~/projects/gegl/babl-patch/babl/tests $ time ./babl_fish_path_dhtml > babl_fish_path_patch.html real 0m3.844s user 0m3.416s sys 0m0.048s Here are the resulting HTML files: http://www.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~hellj1am/WWW/babl_fish_path_0.0.20.html http://www.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~hellj1am/WWW/babl_fish_path_patch.html Such a dramatic performance gain is not to be expected from any practical usage of the babl library, since the database code is not as heavily used. A simple 512x512 16-bit/color RGBA PNG image load/save test using gegl gives following results for runs w/o and w/ the patch. I took the respective best results from several tries: W/O real 0m6.367s user 0m3.476s sys 0m0.168s W real 0m2.930s user 0m2.400s sys 0m0.096s I hope these results give a better idea about the performance of the changes. Regards, Jan _______________________________________________ Gegl-developer mailing list Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
