Something very recent on the topic:

http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57576627-285/use-google-translate-offline-by-downloading-language-packs/

I am impressed, about 150 MB per language pack. The translation is soso, 
compared to the online version, but usable.

W dniu 07.03.2013 08:35, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt pisze:
> 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

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

Reply via email to