Re: [boost] Voronoi benchmark update

Subject: Re: [boost] Voronoi benchmark update
From: Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory) (sloriot.ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-03 11:30:20

Hi Andrii,

I went for the most naive way and put points in a vector.

Cheers,

Sebastien.

On 04/30/2013 11:39 PM, Andrii Sydorchuk wrote:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory)<
> sloriot.ml_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>
>> There is a dual member function, but it requires to use an exact kernel
>> for the construction. So the best way to achieve this is to use the
>> functor Construct_circumcenter_2.
>>
>> However, I'm not sure about what output you want me to create once the
>> points are computed.
>>
>
> I am not interested in any output in particular. Just ensuring that
> benchmark compares the same work done
> by the both libraries. In the current benchmark Boost implementation is
> actually computing the coordinates
> of the Voronoi vertices, while the GGAL one doesn't.
>
> I think I can produce a boost graph, but this induces an additional
>> construction while the triangulation already hold the combinatorial
>> of the Voronoi.
>>
>
> Sure, I don't want to add any significant overhead to the CGAL's benchmark
> either.
> Thus simply evaluating coordinates of Voronoi vertices into a vector of
> points sounds like a reasonable solution.
>
> Regards,
> Andrii
>
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sebastien.
>>
>>   Last time I was not able to find one in CGAL (4.0) documentation.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Sebastien Loriot<sloriot.ml_at_[hidden]>**
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I'm involved in the CGAL Project, and saw the Voronoi benchmark.
>>>> It would be nice if you could change the CGAL code slightly, as it is
>>>> not as bad as it currently seems.   Attached is the diff to
>>>> the trunk of boost.
>>>>
>>>> Concerning the Voronoi diagram of points, a CGAL user, would
>>>> use the Delaunay_triangulation_2 class.
>>>>
>>>> Concerning the Voronoi diagram of segments (that do not intersect)
>>>> one would make a better choice for number types and traits classes.
>>>> Also one better first inserts the endpoints and then the segments
>>>> (I agree, this should definitely go into a member function).
>>>>
>>>> Admittedly our examples could be better.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Sebastien
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Unsubscribe&   other changes:
>>>> http://lists.boost.org/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Unsubscribe&   other changes: http://lists.boost.org/**
>>> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Unsubscribe&  other changes: http://lists.boost.org/**
>> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe&  other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost