Hi,
> Note that contrary to previous algorithm, timeString.length will be < 8 more
> often (first 1/16 of ~3 days cycle), so this fix is important.
Given the improvement and that calls to random and to get the time would be
slower than getting the length (or so I assume not tested) it wan't a bi
ware.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 20 octobre 2013 23:23
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: git commit: [flex-sdk] [refs/heads/develop] - FLEX-33829 improve
create UID performance and use New algorithm using ByteArray around 4x faster
than original.
Hi,
> for (i = 8; i > timeString.length; --i)
Hi,
> for (i = 8; i > timeString.length; --i)
Would probably be better as:
var timeLength = timeString.length;
for (i = 8; i>timeLength; i--)
(As the condition is rarely encountered it's not a big deal)
Thanks,
Justin
o:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 20 octobre 2013 00:33
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: UID performance
Hi,
OSX Safari 11.8 (debug)
Original: 1.25
V2 with join : 1.00
v3 with bytyearray: 0.625
OSX Chrome 11.9 (non debug)
Original: 0.958
V2: 0.898
V3: 0.374
So I think it fair to say let go
Hi,
OSX Safari 11.8 (debug)
Original: 1.25
V2 with join : 1.00
v3 with bytyearray: 0.625
OSX Chrome 11.9 (non debug)
Original: 0.958
V2: 0.898
V3: 0.374
So I think it fair to say let go with the ByteArray solution. There a few other
functions in that same class that could be improved.
Thanks,
On 10/18/13 5:45 PM, "João Fernandes"
wrote:
>Chrome Flash Pepper reports
>V1 0.891s
>V2 0.828s
>V3 0.276s
>
>Great results! This will clearly improve large ArrayCollections
>deserialization! Thank you for this!
True, but implementing IUID should still be faster. And lazy
deserialization even
Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
> Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 02:07
> À : dev@flex.apache.org
> Objet : Re: UID performance
>
> I assume you double-checked in flashplayerversion.com that FF is running
> a release player?
>
> It could be that bytearray got optimized over time
d'origine-
De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 02:07
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: UID performance
I assume you double-checked in flashplayerversion.com that FF is running a
release player?
It could be that bytearray got optimized over time
istent.
> >>
> >> Here is the link:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12169005/ApacheFlex/TestUIDPerf_relea
> >>se.swf
> >>
> >> Maurice
> >>
> >> -Message d'origine-
; -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
>
tations.
>
>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 i
om/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 mor
Thanks Alex.
-Message d'origine-
De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 02:05
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: UID performance
Thanks for providing the release SWF. For me the results are even better:
Win7 Chrome FP11.8 release player
1.39s
nvoyé : 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
-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/Apach
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" w
oftware.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2013 11:08
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: UID performance
Hi,
> I don't have Scout :-(
Scout is currently free with the free Creative Cloud account last time I
checked.
Thanks,
Justin
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]
>
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
Ok thanks.
When running with Chrome, I am getting other figures:
1.3
1.26
0.42
That's weird !!
-Message d'origine-
De : Mark Kessler [mailto:kesslerconsult...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 01:51
À : Dev@Flex
Objet : Re: UID performance
2.11s
1.93s
1.32s
O
Sorry, I don't see what you got. Is there a screenshot or something ?
-Message d'origine-
De : Mark Kessler [mailto:kesslerconsult...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2013 01:51
À : Dev@Flex
Objet : Re: UID performance
I ran the swf file from your link and I got these...
2.11s
1.93s
1.32s
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Mark Kessler
wrote:
> I ran the swf file from your link and I got these...
>
>
>
>
> 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@fle
di 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:
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
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 surp
ailto: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 curr
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 o
tring();
}
-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: generate
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 a
apache.org
Objet : Re: UID performance
Hi,
See http://gaming.adobe.com/technologies/scout/
"For a limited time, you can get Scout as part of a free Creative Cloud
membership."
Get it while you can :-)
Justin
Hi,
See http://gaming.adobe.com/technologies/scout/
"For a limited time, you can get Scout as part of a free Creative Cloud
membership."
Get it while you can :-)
Justin
flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: UID performance
Hi,
> I don't have Scout :-(
Scout is currently free with the free Creative Cloud account last time I
checked.
Thanks,
Justin
aurice Amsellem [maurice.amsel...@systar.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2013 10:26
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: RE: UID performance
I don't have Scout :-(
I have a premium FlashBuilder 4.7 licence.
Does it come with it, or is it a separate purchase?
Maurice
-Message d'origin
Hi,
> I don't have Scout :-(
Scout is currently free with the free Creative Cloud account last time I
checked.
Thanks,
Justin
I don't have Scout :-(
I have a premium FlashBuilder 4.7 licence.
Does it come with it, or is it a separate purchase?
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2013 10:08
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet
Hi,
Well 10% or so is better than nothing.
Mind running though scout may be that getTime is more expensive on windows and
skewing the results a little? I vaguely recall something about that in the past.
I tested on OSX.
Thanks,
Justin
: vendredi 18 octobre 2013 09:02
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : RE: UID performance
Hi, I have created simple test suite (in FlexUnit) with original and new
method functions, calling 100K times createUID and the results are different
for me:
-debug=true:
Old createUID : 2.652s
New create
Config: Windows 7, coreI7 , FP 11.8
Any one confirm ?
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2013 03:18
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : UID performance
Hi,
This is about 2/3rds to twice as fast by my measurement
Probably implicitly in the array indexing. I think the index values may
get converted to strings before the array lookup.
On 10/17/13 8:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Seems reasonable. Good idea to try join(). Why the question about
>> Number.toString()?
>
>Scout showed it being call
Hi,
> Seems reasonable. Good idea to try join(). Why the question about
> Number.toString()?
Scout showed it being called but cant see where it's doing number to string
conversion in that code.
Thanks,
Justin
Seems reasonable. Good idea to try join(). Why the question about
Number.toString()?
-Alex
On 10/17/13 6:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is about 2/3rds to twice as fast by my measurements (in Scout). Any
>one confirm?
>
>Changes include.
>- Use a string to store hex digits and cha
Hi,
This is about 2/3rds to twice as fast by my measurements (in Scout). Any one
confirm?
Changes include.
- Use a string to store hex digits and charAt rather than array of ascii
- Use Array.join rather than String.fromCharCode
- Remove Math.floor as they are not required
- Set up static array
43 matches
Mail list logo
