That newer link gives me faster results... lol 1.71s 1.54s 0.903s
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Maurice Amsellem < maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: > I tried already and the results are consistent. > > Here is the link: > > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12169005/ApacheFlex/TestUIDPerf_release.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 > >> > > > >
