7:31 p.m.
A significant slowdown may be noticed when compared with the previous
glamourous report (sent on October 23). Details at the end of the amil.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Report produced on 2010-01-16T15:19:06+00:00
------------------
Opening Browser Benchmark:
15 openings => 2620 ms
------------------
------------------
Selecting Item in Browser Benchmark
100 size and selections => 2569 ms
200 size and selections => 4359 ms
300 size and selections => 6912 ms
400 size and selections => 8298 ms
500 size and selections => 10414 ms
600 size and selections => 12462 ms
700 size and selections => 14019 ms
800 size and selections => 16123 ms
900 size and selections => 19234 ms
1000 size and selections => 19984 ms
1500 size and selections => 30812 ms
2000 size and selections => 45497 ms
------------------
------------------
Selecting in finder item Benchmark
1 size and selections => 166 ms
5 size and selections => 897 ms
10 size and selections => 1949 ms
15 size and selections => 2968 ms
20 size and selections => 4008 ms
25 size and selections => 5112 ms
30 size and selections => 11714 ms
35 size and selections => 7686 ms
40 size and selections => 8963 ms
45 size and selections => 10428 ms
50 size and selections => 12471 ms
------------------
50.66 % of methods are covered from unit tests
Progress from last time: +17.19 %
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From the report generated on Oct 23, we had:
Selecting Item Benchmark:
2000 size and selections => 2729 ms
Selecting in finder item Benchmark:
50 size and selections => 1881 ms
The new version is one magnitude slower.
However, opening a browser is slightly faster. The first health report
indicated:
15 openings => 3622 ms
Cheers,
Alexandre
8:26 p.m.
Hmm, this does not sound quite right because such a slowdown should be
noticeable from the UI as well, but that does not really happen.
Cheers,
Doru
On 16 Jan 2010, at 19:31, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
A significant slowdown may be noticed when compared with the
previous glamourous report (sent on October 23). Details at the end
of the amil.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=
Report produced on 2010-01-16T15:19:06+00:00
------------------
Opening Browser Benchmark:
15 openings => 2620 ms
------------------
------------------
Selecting Item in Browser Benchmark
100 size and selections => 2569 ms
200 size and selections => 4359 ms
300 size and selections => 6912 ms
400 size and selections => 8298 ms
500 size and selections => 10414 ms
600 size and selections => 12462 ms
700 size and selections => 14019 ms
800 size and selections => 16123 ms
900 size and selections => 19234 ms
1000 size and selections => 19984 ms
1500 size and selections => 30812 ms
2000 size and selections => 45497 ms
------------------
------------------
Selecting in finder item Benchmark
1 size and selections => 166 ms
5 size and selections => 897 ms
10 size and selections => 1949 ms
15 size and selections => 2968 ms
20 size and selections => 4008 ms
25 size and selections => 5112 ms
30 size and selections => 11714 ms
35 size and selections => 7686 ms
40 size and selections => 8963 ms
45 size and selections => 10428 ms
50 size and selections => 12471 ms
------------------
50.66 % of methods are covered from unit tests
Progress from last time: +17.19 %
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=
From the report generated on Oct 23, we had:
Selecting Item Benchmark:
2000 size and selections => 2729 ms
Selecting in finder item Benchmark:
50 size and selections => 1881 ms
The new version is one magnitude slower.
However, opening a browser is slightly faster. The first health
report indicated:
15 openings => 3622 ms
Cheers,
Alexandre
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
3:40 p.m.
Hi Alex,
Alain Plantec improved the speed of selection in MorphTreeMorph
yesterday (however, I might have a faster computer than you 2.8 GHz
Intel Core 2 Duo).
The overall performance increased, but the figures still show a
significant slowdown from your October report.
Cheers,
Doru
Report produced on 2010-01-17T13:35:38+00:00
------------------
Opening Browser Benchmark:
15 openings => 1806 ms
------------------
------------------
Selecting Item in Browser Benchmark
100 size and selections => 1894 ms
200 size and selections => 3455 ms
300 size and selections => 4638 ms
400 size and selections => 6333 ms
500 size and selections => 7329 ms
600 size and selections => 8720 ms
700 size and selections => 10423 ms
800 size and selections => 11718 ms
900 size and selections => 13037 ms
1000 size and selections => 14470 ms
1500 size and selections => 21524 ms
2000 size and selections => 28685 ms
------------------
------------------
Selecting in finder item Benchmark
1 size and selections => 138 ms
5 size and selections => 713 ms
10 size and selections => 1477 ms
15 size and selections => 2187 ms
20 size and selections => 3001 ms
25 size and selections => 3813 ms
30 size and selections => 4634 ms
35 size and selections => 5523 ms
40 size and selections => 6750 ms
45 size and selections => 7493 ms
50 size and selections => 8310 ms
------------------
Cheers,
Doru
On 16 Jan 2010, at 20:26, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hmm, this does not sound quite right because such a slowdown should
be noticeable from the UI as well, but that does not really happen.
Cheers,
Doru
On 16 Jan 2010, at 19:31, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> A significant slowdown may be noticed when compared with the
> previous glamourous report (sent on October 23). Details at the end
> of the amil.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=-=
> Report produced on 2010-01-16T15:19:06+00:00
> ------------------
> Opening Browser Benchmark:
> 15 openings => 2620 ms
> ------------------
>
> ------------------
> Selecting Item in Browser Benchmark
> 100 size and selections => 2569 ms
> 200 size and selections => 4359 ms
> 300 size and selections => 6912 ms
> 400 size and selections => 8298 ms
> 500 size and selections => 10414 ms
> 600 size and selections => 12462 ms
> 700 size and selections => 14019 ms
> 800 size and selections => 16123 ms
> 900 size and selections => 19234 ms
> 1000 size and selections => 19984 ms
> 1500 size and selections => 30812 ms
> 2000 size and selections => 45497 ms
> ------------------
>
> ------------------
> Selecting in finder item Benchmark
> 1 size and selections => 166 ms
> 5 size and selections => 897 ms
> 10 size and selections => 1949 ms
> 15 size and selections => 2968 ms
> 20 size and selections => 4008 ms
> 25 size and selections => 5112 ms
> 30 size and selections => 11714 ms
> 35 size and selections => 7686 ms
> 40 size and selections => 8963 ms
> 45 size and selections => 10428 ms
> 50 size and selections => 12471 ms
> ------------------
>
> 50.66 % of methods are covered from unit tests
> Progress from last time: +17.19 %
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=-=
>
> From the report generated on Oct 23, we had:
> Selecting Item Benchmark:
> 2000 size and selections => 2729 ms
> Selecting in finder item Benchmark:
> 50 size and selections => 1881 ms
>
> The new version is one magnitude slower.
>
> However, opening a browser is slightly faster. The first health
> report indicated:
> 15 openings => 3622 ms
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know
her."
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
4883
days inactive
4884
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Tudor Girba