On Monday 28 May 2007 05:08:54 Nitin Gupta wrote: > On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 28 May 2007 04:37:04 Nitin Gupta wrote: > > > On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > As you mentioned in your mail, you are using lzo1x_1_11_compress() > > > which is slower than what I ported (which is same as what is exported > > > by miniLZO). So, can you please test with the version ported - this > > > is found in lzo/src/lzo1x_1.c (or in minilzo.c). > > > Also, can you please use 'take 5' for your next testing? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Nitin > > > > Will do. (that's DBITS=15, correct?) > > That's D_BITS=14 > > > However, when I averaged it 100 times, lzo1x_1_11_compress() showed > > better speed than your implementation - about 1.5% faster. > > I don't yet have any explanation for this. > > > The *unsafe* > > decompressor, however, only shows about a 1.2% speed advantage over the > > safe decompressor. > > > > DRH
New testbed based on minilzo complete.
Results from run using 1000 runs to generate averages:
1000 run averages:
'Tiny LZO':
Combined: 55.196 usec
Compression: 37.132 usec
Decompression: 18.064 usec
'miniLZO':
Combined: 55.785 usec
Compression: 40.862 usec
Decompression: 14.923 usec
(using (tiny/full)/100 for percentages:
'Tiny' is 0.9% faster on average
Same for the Compression
'safe' decompressor from tiny is 1.2% slower than unsafe from minilzo)
Newer version attached - same TODO items as the previous.
DRH
lzo1x-test-2.tar.bz2
Description: application/tbz
