|
From: Petr V. <VAN...@vc...> - 2002-08-08 18:51:48
|
On 8 Aug 02 at 11:32, James Simmons wrote: > > On 8 Aug 02 at 11:16, James Simmons wrote: > > > > I also hope that performance problems will be solved > > > > before we are > > > > forced to not use putcs. > > > > > > It will be :-) I need to one align the data. Second I > > > plan to implement the patch recently posted here. > > > > Patch still showed about 100% slowdown against 2.4.x, if I interpreted > > yesterday's table correctly. It is better than 1000% slowdown, but still... > > I could believe a slow down of 2x but 1000 I don't think so. Message from Antonio Daplas (http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/9276/0/9249087/) says: 2.5 old (with offscreen buffers) 10.708 2.5 new 4.378 2.4 2.098 His first message (http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/9276/25/9237029/) listed 13.586 for old 2.5 code. So you are right, old code was not 1000% slowdown, only 500%. But main problem is not speed of old code, but speed of new code. And if numbers are right, new code is still 100% slower than 2.4.x code was. Petr Vandrovec |