I know but I wasn't expecting that much while still using my debug player.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >
