Re: [boost] [gil][io_ew] performance test

Subject: Re: [boost] [gil][io_ew] performance test
From: Christian Henning (chhenning_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-18 10:38:34

Hi Domagoj, good to hear back from you. Hope all is well.

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Domagoj Saric <dsaritz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> "Christian Henning" <chhenning_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:AANLkTimTSE6YRJDKqG120cyn9hosC9QaQBTQf40JLdDF_at_mail.gmail.com...
>>
>> Hi there, I did a little update to include more files. Now I have
>> 26580 jpeg files distributed over 10 folders. I also tried to reduce
>> the number of image memory allocation by reusing the same image over
>> and over again.
>
> But you still used boost::filesystem which is also not the most lightweight
> thing in the Universe (for example, simply adding its cpp files to my test
> project added ~150kB to the release binary...also between the "if (
> fs::is_directory( dir_path ) )" line and the first read_image() call I
> counted 16 memory allocations and 6 memory allocations between each
> subsequent call to read_image()...)...

Maybe so, but I use filesystem in both tests. Meaning the overhead is
prevalent in my IO and your IO. Also the code is platform independent.

How do you count these memory allocations? I did some changes in
io_new. No strings anymore, for example.

>
> Your test description is also missing relevant information, such as the test
> machine's hardware and software configuration, third party library versions
> and compiler and linker options used to build them and the test project...

Sorry, my bad. I use a pretty powerful box with 2 Intel Xeon E5630 and
12GB of RAM. For compiling I used VS2010 on Windows 7. For boost I'm
using some trunk version for the 1.46 release.

>
> But, as argued to Lubomir, this 'obfuscation' or 'damping' of results (i.e.
> the comparison between different backend wrappers) with filesystem access is
> IMO moot...

There are several things that I still need to make better use of libjpg.

>
>
>>> All jpegs are the same image but they are a different file. This way
>>> I'm sure I don't have to convert the image into a different color
>>> space. I did that since io2 doesn't support any_image, I believe.
>
> I did add any_image support at the beginning but did not test it in a long
> time so I don't know whether it still works...but, why would you need
> any_image even if you did use different images with different formats...the
> backend/backend wrapper can do the conversion (e.g. your
> read_and_convert_image())...

I should get the latest from your project I suppose.

Regards,
Christian