Search Results

Search found 267 results on 11 pages for 'benchmarking'.

Page 5/11 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • Why the same code in WPF is slower than in Windows Forms?

    - by Marco Bettiolo
    I made bunch of benchmarks of the framework 4.0 and older and I can't understand why the same code is slower when using WPF compared to Windows Forms: This is the code, it has nothing to do with the UI elements: Random rnd = new Random(845038); Int64 number = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 500000000; i++) { number += rnd.Next(); } The code takes 5968ms - 6024ms to execute in Windows Forms and 6953ms in WPF. Here is the post with the downloadable solution: http://blog.bettiolo.it/2010/04/benchmark-of-net-framework-40.html

    Read the article

  • Does Google Analytics have peformance overhead?

    - by Mohit Nanda
    To what extent does Google Analytics impact performance? I'm looking for the following: Benchmarks (including response times/pageload times et al) Links or results to similar benchmarks One (possible) method of testing Google Analytics (GA) on your site: Serve ga.js (the Google Analytics JavaScript file) from your own server. Update from Google Daily (test 1) and Weekly (test 2). I would be interested to see how this reduces the communication between the client webserver and the GA server. Has anyone conducted any of these tests? If so, can you provide your results? If not, does anyone have a better method for testing the performance hit (or lack thereof) for using GA?

    Read the article

  • Are .NET 4.0 Runtime slower than .NET 2.0 Runtime?

    - by DxCK
    After I upgraded my projects to .NET 4.0 (With VS2010) I realized than they run slower than they were in .NET 2.0 (VS2008). So i decided to benchmark a simple console application in both VS2008 & VS2010 with various Target Frameworks: using System; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Reflection; namespace RuntimePerfTest { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().ImageRuntimeVersion); Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch(); while (true) { sw.Reset(); sw.Start(); for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) { } TimeSpan elapsed = sw.Elapsed; Console.WriteLine(elapsed); } } } } Here is the results: VS2008 Target Framework 2.0: ~0.25 seconds Target Framework 3.0: ~0.25 seconds Target Framework 3.5: ~0.25 seconds VS2010 Target Framework 2.0: ~3.8 seconds Target Framework 3.0: ~3.8 seconds Target Framework 3.5: ~1.51 seconds Target Framework 3.5 Client Profile: ~3.8 seconds Target Framework 4.0: ~1.01 seconds Target Framework 4.0 Client Profile: ~1.01 seconds My initial conclusion is obviously that programs compiled with VS2008 working faster than programs compiled with VS2010. Can anyone explain those performance changes between VS2008 and VS2010? and between different Target Frameworks inside VS2010 itself?

    Read the article

  • JVM performance test suite

    - by pierr
    Hi, I have just ported phoneME to our MIPS platform. I feel it runs not that fast; however, is there any performance test suite I can run against to get some quantitative measurement of the performance? I might need to pick some weak points for optimization. In addition, what are common criterions used to evalute a JVM ?

    Read the article

  • (Pathinfo vs fnmatch part 2) Speed benchmark reversed on Windows and Mac

    - by zaf
    On a previous question the pathinfo and fnmatch functions were benchmarked and the answers all came out opposite to my benchmark results. You can read the different results with the benchmark code here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2693428/pathinfo-vs-fnmatch I couldn't work it out until I ran the same code on a machine running vista. The results then matched the other users. My main machine is a mac. So, my questions are: Why do we get these two different results? Could this apply to other functions?

    Read the article

  • In PHP is faster to get a value from an if statement or from an array?

    - by Vittorio Vittori
    Maybe this is a stupid question but what is faster? <?php function getCss1 ($id = 0) { if ($id == 1) { return 'red'; } else if ($id == 2) { return 'yellow'; } else if ($id == 3) { return 'green'; } else if ($id == 4) { return 'blue'; } else if ($id == 5) { return 'orange'; } else { return 'grey'; } } function getCss2 ($id = 0) { $css[] = 'grey'; $css[] = 'red'; $css[] = 'yellow'; $css[] = 'green'; $css[] = 'blue'; $css[] = 'orange'; return $css[$id]; } echo getCss1(3); echo getCss2(3); ?> I suspect is faster the if statement but I prefere to ask!

    Read the article

  • Definition of Connect, Processing, Waiting in apache bench.

    - by rpatel
    When I run apache bench I get results like: Command: abs.exe -v 3 -n 10 -c 1 https://mysite Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 203 213 8.1 219 219 Processing: 78 177 88.1 172 359 Waiting: 78 169 84.6 156 344 Total: 281 389 86.7 391 563 I can't seem to find the definition of Connect, Processing and Waiting. What do those numbers mean?

    Read the article

  • Microbenchmark showing process-switching faster than thread-switching; what's wrong?

    - by Yang
    I have two simple microbenchmarks trying to measure thread- and process-switching overheads, but the process-switching overhead. The code is living here, and r1667 is pasted below: https://assorted.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/assorted/sandbox/trunk/src/c/process_switch_bench.c // on zs, ~2.1-2.4us/switch #include <stdlib.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <semaphore.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <pthread.h> uint32_t COUNTER; pthread_mutex_t LOCK; pthread_mutex_t START; sem_t *s0, *s1, *s2; void * threads ( void * unused ) { // Wait till we may fire away sem_wait(s2); for (;;) { pthread_mutex_lock(&LOCK); pthread_mutex_unlock(&LOCK); COUNTER++; sem_post(s0); sem_wait(s1); } return 0; } int64_t timeInMS () { struct timeval t; gettimeofday(&t, NULL); return ( (int64_t)t.tv_sec * 1000 + (int64_t)t.tv_usec / 1000 ); } int main ( int argc, char ** argv ) { int64_t start; pthread_t t1; pthread_mutex_init(&LOCK, NULL); COUNTER = 0; s0 = sem_open("/s0", O_CREAT, 0022, 0); if (s0 == 0) { perror("sem_open"); exit(1); } s1 = sem_open("/s1", O_CREAT, 0022, 0); if (s1 == 0) { perror("sem_open"); exit(1); } s2 = sem_open("/s2", O_CREAT, 0022, 0); if (s2 == 0) { perror("sem_open"); exit(1); } int x, y, z; sem_getvalue(s0, &x); sem_getvalue(s1, &y); sem_getvalue(s2, &z); printf("%d %d %d\n", x, y, z); pid_t pid = fork(); if (pid) { pthread_create(&t1, NULL, threads, NULL); pthread_detach(t1); // Get start time and fire away start = timeInMS(); sem_post(s2); sem_post(s2); // Wait for about a second sleep(1); // Stop thread pthread_mutex_lock(&LOCK); // Find out how much time has really passed. sleep won't guarantee me that // I sleep exactly one second, I might sleep longer since even after being // woken up, it can take some time before I gain back CPU time. Further // some more time might have passed before I obtained the lock! int64_t time = timeInMS() - start; // Correct the number of thread switches accordingly COUNTER = (uint32_t)(((uint64_t)COUNTER * 2 * 1000) / time); printf("Number of process switches in about one second was %u\n", COUNTER); printf("roughly %f microseconds per switch\n", 1000000.0 / COUNTER); // clean up kill(pid, 9); wait(0); sem_close(s0); sem_close(s1); sem_unlink("/s0"); sem_unlink("/s1"); sem_unlink("/s2"); } else { if (1) { sem_t *t = s0; s0 = s1; s1 = t; } threads(0); // never return } return 0; } https://assorted.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/assorted/sandbox/trunk/src/c/thread_switch_bench.c // From <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/304752/how-to-estimate-the-thread-context-switching-overhead> // on zs, ~4-5us/switch; tried making COUNTER updated only by one thread, but no difference #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/time.h> uint32_t COUNTER; pthread_mutex_t LOCK; pthread_mutex_t START; pthread_cond_t CONDITION; void * threads ( void * unused ) { // Wait till we may fire away pthread_mutex_lock(&START); pthread_mutex_unlock(&START); int first=1; pthread_mutex_lock(&LOCK); // If I'm not the first thread, the other thread is already waiting on // the condition, thus Ihave to wake it up first, otherwise we'll deadlock if (COUNTER > 0) { pthread_cond_signal(&CONDITION); first=0; } for (;;) { if (first) COUNTER++; pthread_cond_wait(&CONDITION, &LOCK); // Always wake up the other thread before processing. The other // thread will not be able to do anything as long as I don't go // back to sleep first. pthread_cond_signal(&CONDITION); } pthread_mutex_unlock(&LOCK); return 0; } int64_t timeInMS () { struct timeval t; gettimeofday(&t, NULL); return ( (int64_t)t.tv_sec * 1000 + (int64_t)t.tv_usec / 1000 ); } int main ( int argc, char ** argv ) { int64_t start; pthread_t t1; pthread_t t2; pthread_mutex_init(&LOCK, NULL); pthread_mutex_init(&START, NULL); pthread_cond_init(&CONDITION, NULL); pthread_mutex_lock(&START); COUNTER = 0; pthread_create(&t1, NULL, threads, NULL); pthread_create(&t2, NULL, threads, NULL); pthread_detach(t1); pthread_detach(t2); // Get start time and fire away start = timeInMS(); pthread_mutex_unlock(&START); // Wait for about a second sleep(1); // Stop both threads pthread_mutex_lock(&LOCK); // Find out how much time has really passed. sleep won't guarantee me that // I sleep exactly one second, I might sleep longer since even after being // woken up, it can take some time before I gain back CPU time. Further // some more time might have passed before I obtained the lock! int64_t time = timeInMS() - start; // Correct the number of thread switches accordingly COUNTER = (uint32_t)(((uint64_t)COUNTER * 2 * 1000) / time); printf("Number of thread switches in about one second was %u\n", COUNTER); printf("roughly %f microseconds per switch\n", 1000000.0 / COUNTER); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • B-trees, databases, sequential inputs, and speed.

    - by IanC
    I know from experience that b-trees have awful performance when data is added to them sequentially (regardless of the direction). However, when data is added randomly, best performance is obtained. This is easy to demonstrate with the likes of an RB-Tree. Sequential writes cause a maximum number of tree balances to be performed. I know very few databases use binary trees, but rather used n-order balanced trees. I logically assume they suffer a similar fate to binary trees when it comes to sequential inputs. This sparked my curiosity. If this is so, then one could deduce that writing sequential IDs (such as in IDENTITY(1,1)) would cause multiple re-balances of the tree to occur. I have seen many posts argue against GUIDs as "these will cause random writes". I never use GUIDs, but it struck me that this "bad" point was in fact a good point. So I decided to test it. Here is my code: SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[T1]( [ID] [int] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [T1_1] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) ) GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[T2]( [ID] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [T2_1] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) ) GO declare @i int, @t1 datetime, @t2 datetime, @t3 datetime, @c char(300) set @t1 = GETDATE() set @i = 1 while @i < 2000 begin insert into T2 values (NEWID(), @c) set @i = @i + 1 end set @t2 = GETDATE() WAITFOR delay '0:0:10' set @t3 = GETDATE() set @i = 1 while @i < 2000 begin insert into T1 values (@i, @c) set @i = @i + 1 end select DATEDIFF(ms, @t1, @t2) AS [Int], DATEDIFF(ms, @t3, getdate()) AS [GUID] drop table T1 drop table T2 Note that I am not subtracting any time for the creation of the GUID nor for the considerably extra size of the row. The results on my machine were as follows: Int: 17,340 ms GUID: 6,746 ms This means that in this test, random inserts of 16 bytes was almost 3 times faster than sequential inserts of 4 bytes. Would anyone like to comment on this? Ps. I get that this isn't a question. It's an invite to discussion, and that is relevant to learning optimum programming.

    Read the article

  • Question about Benchmark funcion in Mysql ( Incredible results ).

    - by xRobot
    I have 2 tables: author with 3 millions of rows. book with 20 miles rows. . So I have benchmarked this query with a join: SELECT BENCHMARK(100000000, 'SELECT book.title, author.name FROM `book` , `author` WHERE book.id = author.book_id ') And this is the result: Query took 0.7438 sec ONLY 0.7438 seconds for 100 millions of query with a join ??? Do I make some mistakes or this is the right result ?

    Read the article

  • Sun's JVM instruction speed table

    - by Pindatjuh
    Is there a benchmark available how much relative time each instruction costs in a single-thread, average-case scenario (either with or without JIT compiler), for the JVM (any version) by Sun? If there is not a benchmark already available, how can I get this information? E.g.: TIME iload_1 1 iadd 12 getfield 40 etc. Where getfield is equivalent to 40 iload_1 instructions.

    Read the article

  • Why is sys+user > real in "time command"?

    - by shadyabhi
    I have a program that uses pthread library to do the matrix multiplication of 500x500 matrix. Each thread calculates 50 rows of the matrix. When I run tiem command:- shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~$ time ./a.out real 0m0.383s user 0m0.810s sys 0m0.000s shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~$ How come sys+user is greater than real time?

    Read the article

  • Is there a IDE/compiler PC benchmark I can use to compare my PCs performance?

    - by RickL
    I'm looking for a benchmark (and results on other PCs) which would give me an idea of the development performance gain I could get by upgrading my PC, also the benchmark could be used to justify the upgrade to my boss. I use Visual Studio 2008 for my development, so I'd like to get an idea of by what factor the build times would be improved, and also it would be good if the benchmark could incorporate IDE performance (i.e. when editing, using intellisense, opening code files etc) into its result. I currently have an AMD 3800x2, with 2GB RAM on Vista 32. For example, I'd like to know what kind of performance gain I'd see in Visual Studio 2008 with a Q6600, 4GB RAM on Vista 64. And also with other processors, and other RAM sizes... also see whether hard disk performance is a big factor. EDIT: I mentioned Vista 64 because I'm aware that Vista 32 can only use 3GB RAM maximum. So I'd presume that wanting to use more RAM would require Vista 64, but perhaps it could still be slower overall there is a large overhead in using the 32 bit VS 2008 on 64 bit OS.

    Read the article

  • Why PHP (script) serves more requests than CGI (compiled)?

    - by Lucas Batistussi
    I developed the following CGI script and run on Apache 2 (http://localhost/test.chtml). I did same script in PHP (http://localhost/verifica.php). Later I performed Apache benchmark using Apache Benchmark tool. The results are showed in images. include #include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { printf("%s%c%c\n", "Content-Type:text/html;charset=iso-8859-1",13,10); printf("<TITLE>Multiplication results</TITLE>\n"); printf("<H3>Multiplication results</H3>\n"); return 0; } Someone can explain me why PHP serves more requests than CGI script?

    Read the article

  • Local Variables take 7x longer to access than global variables?

    - by ItzWarty
    I was trying to benchmark the gain/loss of "caching" math.floor, in hopes that I could make calls faster. Here was the test: <html> <head> <script> window.onload = function() { var startTime = new Date().getTime(); var k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += Math.floor(9.99); var mathFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; startTime = new Date().getTime(); window.mfloor = Math.floor; k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += window.mfloor(9.99); var globalFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; startTime = new Date().getTime(); var mfloor = Math.floor; k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += mfloor(9.99); var localFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; document.getElementById("MathResult").innerHTML = mathFloorTime; document.getElementById("globalResult").innerHTML = globalFloorTime; document.getElementById("localResult").innerHTML = localFloorTime; }; </script> </head> <body> Math.floor: <span id="MathResult"></span>ms <br /> var mathfloor: <span id="globalResult"></span>ms <br /> window.mathfloor: <span id="localResult"></span>ms <br /> </body> </html> My results from the test: [Chromium 5.0.308.0]: Math.floor: 49ms var mathfloor: 271ms window.mathfloor: 40ms [IE 8.0.6001.18702] Math.floor: 703ms var mathfloor: 9890ms [LOL!] window.mathfloor: 375ms [Firefox [Minefield] 3.7a4pre] Math.floor: 42ms var mathfloor: 2257ms window.mathfloor: 60ms [Safari 4.0.4[531.21.10] ] Math.floor: 92ms var mathfloor: 289ms window.mathfloor: 90ms [Opera 10.10 build 1893] Math.floor: 500ms var mathfloor: 843ms window.mathfloor: 360ms [Konqueror 4.3.90 [KDE 4.3.90 [KDE 4.4 RC1]]] Math.floor: 453ms var mathfloor: 563ms window.mathfloor: 312ms The variance is random, of course, but for the most part In all cases [this shows time taken]: [takes longer] mathfloor Math.floor window.mathfloor [is faster] Why is this? In my projects i've been using var mfloor = Math.floor, and according to my not-so-amazing benchmarks, my efforts to "optimize" actually slowed down the script by ALOT... Is there any other way to make my code more "efficient"...? I'm at the stage where i basically need to optimize, so no, this isn't "premature optimization"...

    Read the article

  • Question about Benchmark function in Mysql ( Incredible results ).

    - by xRobot
    I have 2 tables: author with 3 millions of rows. book with 20 miles rows. . So I have benchmarked this query with a join: SELECT BENCHMARK(100000000, 'SELECT book.title, author.name FROM `book` , `author` WHERE book.id = author.book_id ') And this is the result: Query took 0.7438 sec ONLY 0.7438 seconds for 100 millions of query with a join ??? Do I make some mistakes or this is the right result ?

    Read the article

  • Algorithm performance

    - by william007
    I am testing an algorithm for different parameters on a computer. I notice the performance fluctuates for each parameters. Say I run for the first time I got 20 ms, second times I got 5ms, third times I got 4ms: But the algorithm should work the same for these 3 times. I am using stopwatch from C# library to count the time, is there a better way to measure the performance without subjecting to those fluctuations?

    Read the article

  • What is microbenchmarking?

    - by polygenelubricants
    I've heard this term used, but I'm not entirely sure what it means, so: What DOES it mean and what DOESN'T it mean? What are some examples of what IS and ISN'T microbenchmarking? What are the dangers of microbenchmarking and how do you avoid it? (or is it a good thing?)

    Read the article

  • How can I measure the speed of code written in Java? (AI algorithms)

    - by Registered User
    Hi All, How can I measure the speed of code written in Java? I planning to develop software which will solve Sudoku using all presently available AI and ML algorithms and compare time against simple brute-force method. I need to measure time of each algorithm, I would like to ask for suggestions on what is the best way of doing that? Very important, program must be useful on any machine regardless to CPU power/memory. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How much faster is C++ than C#?

    - by Trap
    Or is it now the other way around? From what I've heard there are some areas in which C# proves to be faster than C++, but I've never had the guts to test it by myself. Thought any of you could explain these differences in detail or point me to the right place for information on this.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >