A release SWF should outperform a debug SWF, so that's expected. On 10/18/13 5:07 PM, "Mark Kessler" <kesslerconsult...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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_relea >>se.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 >> >> >> > >> >>
