[Javabdd-checkins] JavaBDD/xdocs performance.xml,1.3,1.4

[John W. <joe...@us...>]

Update of /cvsroot/javabdd/JavaBDD/xdocs
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv24422/xdocs

Modified Files:
	performance.xml 
Log Message:


Index: performance.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/javabdd/JavaBDD/xdocs/performance.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -C2 -d -r1.3 -r1.4
*** performance.xml	27 Jul 2004 21:49:14 -0000	1.3
--- performance.xml	28 Jul 2004 03:41:56 -0000	1.4
***************
*** 11,40 ****
        <p>
        Here are the timings of solving the 12x12 NQueens problem on
!       my home machine (2.4GHz P4, WinXP, Sun JDK 1.5.0b2).  This test simply
        does simple logic operations.  It primarily tests the speed of node
        creation and BDD garbage collection.  The command line I used to test
        was:
        <br/>
!       <code>java -ms320m -mx320m -Dbdd=<i>package</i> -jar javabdd_0.6.jar 12</code>
        <br/>
        </p>
        <table border="2">
          <tr>
!           <td>Package      </td> <td>Time  </td> <td>Peak Memory Usage</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>buddy        </td> <td> 77s  </td> <td> 150mb </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>cudd         </td> <td> 82s  </td> <td> 171mb </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>java -server </td> <td> 90s  </td> <td> 155mb </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>java -client </td> <td> 107s </td> <td> 155mb </td>
          </tr>
        </table>
        <p>
        Don't make any assumptions from these results about the relative
        efficiency of C and Java.  The Java source code is a direct translation
--- 11,56 ----
        <p>
        Here are the timings of solving the 12x12 NQueens problem on
!       my laptop (1.6GHz P-M, WinXP, Sun JDK 1.5.0b2).  This test simply
        does simple logic operations.  It primarily tests the speed of node
        creation and BDD garbage collection.  The command line I used to test
        was:
        <br/>
!       <code>java -ms180m -mx180m -Dbdd=<i>package</i> -jar javabdd_0.6.jar 12</code>
        <br/>
        </p>
        <table border="2">
          <tr>
!           <td>Package        </td> <td>Time  </td> <td>Peak Memory Usage</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>buddy          </td> <td> 65s  </td> <td> 153mb </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>cudd           </td> <td> 78s  </td> <td> 172mb </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>cal            </td> <td> 114s </td> <td> 254mb </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
!           <td>java (-server) </td> <td> 80s  </td> <td> 156mb </td>
!         </tr>
!         <tr>
!           <td>java (-client) </td> <td> 90s  </td> <td> 156mb </td>
!         </tr>
!         <tr>
!           <td>jdd (-server)  </td> <td> 78s  </td> <td> 216mb </td>
!         </tr>
!         <tr>
!           <td>jdd (-client)  </td> <td> 83s  </td> <td> 200mb </td>
          </tr>
        </table>
        <p>
+       As you can see, buddy seems to be the fastest of the native libraries.
+       However, the Java version is not far behind in performance and the
+       memory usage is comparable.  jdd looks promising here but it
+       currently has poor performance on other operations like relprod, which
+       the simple NQueens benchmark doesn't test.
+       </p>
+       <p>
        Don't make any assumptions from these results about the relative
        efficiency of C and Java.  The Java source code is a direct translation