https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6060
--- Comment #9 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2009-04-01 03:01:56 PST --- > Whatever speedup there was must have been due to different > memory organization of compiled code, I can't see other reason. yeah. I have a feeling that as CPUs have gotten so fast compared to the memory pipeline, the effects of memory usage reduction become more important for execution speed. > > can you attach the other changes as patches and I'll test them too? they don't look so great: BEFORE time ./mass-check -n -o ham:mbox:/home/jmason/ftp/tstcor/ham.mbox spam:mbox:/home/jmason/ftp/tstcor/spam.mbox > /dev/null real 0m32.587s user 0m32.166s sys 0m0.284s real 0m32.711s user 0m32.266s sys 0m0.264s real 0m32.416s user 0m32.002s sys 0m0.340s real 0m32.450s user 0m32.094s sys 0m0.276s real avg=33.956s min=33.537s max=34.401s count=5 user avg=33.304s min=32.986s max=33.834s count=5 sys avg=0.282s min=0.236s max=0.312s count=5 AFTER time ./mass-check -n -o ham:mbox:/home/jmason/ftp/tstcor/ham.mbox spam:mbox:/home/jmason/ftp/tstcor/spam.mbox > /dev/null real 0m33.833s user 0m33.078s sys 0m0.308s real 0m34.401s user 0m33.834s sys 0m0.296s real 0m33.913s user 0m33.266s sys 0m0.312s real 0m34.098s user 0m33.358s sys 0m0.236s real avg=32.501s min=32.269s max=32.711s count=6 user avg=32.111s min=31.902s max=32.266s count=6 sys avg=0.282s min=0.224s max=0.340s count=6 So that's 4.4% slower, it seems. (now this wasn't on an unloaded machine, but I think those numbers are mostly accurate.) I'm afraid I'm -1 on that with that performance reduction; sorry! -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
