Yup, V3 wins on mac and windows for me. Thanks for doing it.
-Alex On 10/18/13 4:45 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: >I have posted FB project with the source s + compiled SWF. > >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12169005/ApacheFlex/TestUIDPerf.fxp >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12169005/ApacheFlex/TestUIDPerf.swf > >Algorithm 1= Original >Algorithm 2 = using Array.join() and other optimizations by JMcLean >Algo 3: using single static byteArray (Maurice) > >These are the results I get for 100,000 iterations: > >Original: 2.74s >V2: 2.5s >V3: 1.70s > >Please can you test on your side as well... > >Maurice > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] >Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 00:56 >À : dev@flex.apache.org >Objet : RE: UID performance > >I have used a static ByteArray as suggested: much better. >Thanks for the suggestion. > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] >Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 00:49 >À : dev@flex.apache.org >Objet : RE: UID performance > >Sure, I will do that. > >I will also post the source so that you can recompile at your >convenience. > >Maurice > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 >00:13 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: UID performance > >I'm a bit surprised that ByteArray.writeByte is faster but maybe >Array.join isn't that fast. I would also like to see a test of a single >static bytearray and resetting it and/or overwriting the old bytes. > >Maybe if you put a SWF with various algorithms in your people.a.o folder >folks can hit it and make sure we all get the same results and then we'll >know which algorithm to check in. > >Thanks for this idea as well. > >-Alex > >On 10/18/13 3:05 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> >wrote: > >>Any answer ? >> >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] >>Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2013 14:39 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : >>RE: UID performance >> >>Hi, >> >>I shouldn't have mixed the two options, because it's confusing. >> >>Actually, V3 option generates uppercase, exactly as the current UUID, >>and it's 2x faster. >>So let's forget about V4... >> >>Here is the code: >> >> private static const HEX_CHARS:String = "0123456789ABCDEF"; >> private static const DASH:int = 45; // "-" >> >>public static function createUID():String >> { >> var ba:ByteArray = new ByteArray(); >> var i:int; >> var j:int; >> >> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) { >> ba.writeByte(HEX_CHARS.charCodeAt(Math.random() * 16)); >> } >> >> for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) >> { >> ba.writeByte(DASH); >> for (j = 0; j < 4; j++) >> { >> ba.writeByte(HEX_CHARS.charCodeAt(Math.random() * 16)); >> } >> } >> >> ba.writeByte(DASH); >> >> var time:Number = new Date().getTime(); >> >> var timeString:String = ("0000000" + >>time.toString(16).toUpperCase()).substr(-8); >> ba.writeUTFBytes(timeString); >> >> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) >> { >> ba.writeByte(HEX_CHARS.charCodeAt(Math.random() * 16)); >> } >> >> return ba.toString(); >> } >> >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : vendredi >>18 octobre 2013 14:34 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: UID >>performance >> >>Hi, >> >>> V3: generates the random hex bytes one by one, and writes them to the >>> BA >>> V4: generates 4 or 8 random bytes in one shot, and writes them to the >>> BA (hexa in lowercase, to avoid call toUppercase() ) >>Probably best not too fiddle too much with the UID construction. While >>I can't think of any major issues it would cause there could be subtle >>issues due to seeding of random numbers and the like. >> >>> I don't know if this is acceptable (are we breaking some code if we >>>use lowercase instead of uppercase). >> >>Again can't think of any issues but probably safer if we kept it upper >>case. >> >>Go ahead and post the code it could be interesting/useful to someone. >> >>Thanks, >>Justin >
