Memory usage is usually reported to be about the same (nearly nothing 
for both phrase tables), but as Kenneth mentioned there is a hidden 
usage for both phrase tables that manifests in the disk cache. In theory 
if you run moses long enough with many many sentences the old phrase 
table may eventually end up in memory completely (provided you have so 
much memory). The same is true for the compact phrase table. But since 
the compact phrase table is 6-7 times smaller it will use 6-7 times less 
memory in an asymptotic scenario. So in theory, if the small phrase 
tables fits in your RAM and old phrase table does not (which is quite 
likely so), the compact one should be always much faster after some time 
of continuous employment.

Concerning your other question about the crash. You built the phrase 
table on another system, right? So the problem is that in the trunk the 
binary formats are not compatible between 32 and 64 bit systems.  I have 
versions of the phrase table and the reordering model that are binary 
compatible between 32 and 64 bit systems, but I haven't put this into 
the trunk. It is only available in the WIPO branch which in turn is a 
lot behind the current moses development. Frankly, right now I do not 
have much time available to make that work in the main moses 
distribution, but I can take a look. However I cannot promise anything.

W dniu 07.03.2013 07:38, myounggun jang pisze:
> We use instruments tools in xcode. we check the allocation memory.
> I don't know disk cached is excluded.
> I translate new sentences while measuring.
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Kenneth Heafield <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     How did you measure memory usage?  I'm guessing it excludes the disk
>     cache that the binary phrase table functionally depends on.  Also,
>     were
>     you translating new sentences while measuring or previously translated
>     sentences?
>
>     On 03/07/13 00:47, myounggun jang wrote:
>     > Thank you for your help.
>     > I tested compact table on iPhone.
>     > however memory usage, loading time and translation time is
>     similar with
>     > binary phrase table.
>     >
>     > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt
>     > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi,
>     >     take a look at the charts in
>     > http://www.statmt.org/mtm12/pub/marcin-mtm2012.pdf
>     >
>     >     If you still have questions, drop me an e-mail.
>     >     Best,
>     >     Marcin
>     >
>     >     W dniu 06.03.2013 11:20, myounggun jang pisze:
>     >      > Hello
>     >      > I found that compact phrase table is 6 to 7 times smaller
>     than binary
>     >      > phrase table.
>     >      > I am interested about memory usage, loading time,
>     translation time.
>     >      > Data size is also important, however memory usage and
>     time is more
>     >      > important to me.
>     >      > Can I get a data about comparison between two table?
>     >      > Thank you.
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      > _______________________________________________
>     >      > Moses-support mailing list
>     >      > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     >      > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Moses-support mailing list
>     > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Moses-support mailing list
>     > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     Moses-support mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moses-support mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

Reply via email to