I assume you double-checked in flashplayerversion.com that FF is running a release player?
It could be that bytearray got optimized over time as it was a key piece of gaming strategy and Alchemy. -Alex On 10/18/13 5:04 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: >FYI, I tried with Chrome (FP 11.9) and Firefox (FP 11.4) and the results >are quite different: > >Chrome FP 11.9: >1.29 >1.24 >0.405 > >FireFox FP 11.4: >2.16 >1.93 >1.07 > >Is the difference expected ? That is, is FP 11.9 twice as fast as FP >11.4, or is it just for these computations. > >Maurice > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] >Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 01:59 >À : dev@flex.apache.org >Objet : RE: UID performance > >I tried already and the results are consistent. > >Here is the link: > >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12169005/ApacheFlex/TestUIDPerf_releas >e.swf > >Maurice > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 >01:56 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: UID performance > >Actually, I thought of one more test that needs to be run which I don't >have time to do right now: Release player with release SWF. Sometimes >you can get very different results on the debugger players. > >Thanks, >-Alex > >On 10/18/13 4:53 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>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.fx >>>p >>>https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12169005/ApacheFlex/TestUIDPerf.sw >>>f >>> >>>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 >>> >> >
