search for: faster

On 16 November 2016 at 15:52, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > I will do a quick benchmark run. On a mac pro (running linux) the results I got with all cores available: firefox master 7.146418217 patch 5.304271767 1.34729488437x faster firefox-gc master 7.316743822 patch 5.46436812 1.33899174824x faster chromium master 4.265597914 patch 3.972218527 1.07385781648x faster chromium fast master 1.823614026 patch 1.686059427 1.08158348205x faster the gold plugin master 0.340167513 patch 0.318601465 1.06768973269x f...

...la at gmail.com>> wrote: > > I will do a quick benchmark run. > > > On a mac pro (running linux) the results I got with all cores available: > > firefox > master 7.146418217 <tel:7.146418217> > patch 5.304271767 1 <tel:304271767%201>.34729488437x faster > firefox-gc > master 7.316743822 <tel:7.316743822> > patch 5.46436812 1.33899174824x faster > chromium > master 4.265597914 > patch 3.972218527 1.07385781648x faster > chromium fast > master 1.823614026 > patch 1.686059427 1.08158348205x faster >...

...gt;> > I will do a quick benchmark run. >> >> >> On a mac pro (running linux) the results I got with all cores available: >> >> firefox >> master 7.146418217 <tel:7.146418217> >> patch 5.304271767 1 <tel:304271767%201>.34729488437x faster >> firefox-gc >> master 7.316743822 <tel:7.316743822> >> patch 5.46436812 1.33899174824x faster >> chromium >> master 4.265597914 >> patch 3.972218527 1.07385781648x faster >> chromium fast >> master 1.823614026 >> patch 1.6...

...e impact, I also ran the speed tests. It > seems using mmap()/munmap() has very little performance impact in > either direction, so that's good: > > ### 2to3 ### > 35.590589 -> 35.824554: 1.0066x slower > > ### bzr_startup ### > Min: 0.157976 -> 0.155976: 1.0128x faster > Avg: 0.167575 -> 0.168924: 1.0081x slower > Not significant > Stddev: 0.00334 -> 0.00716: 2.1463x larger > Timeline: http://tinyurl.com/39thymp > > ### call_method ### > Min: 0.878663 -> 0.884666: 1.0068x slower > Avg: 0.887148 -> 0.888667: 1.0017x slower >...

.../36q766k And to gauge the performance impact, I also ran the speed tests. It seems using mmap()/munmap() has very little performance impact in either direction, so that's good: ### 2to3 ### 35.590589 -> 35.824554: 1.0066x slower ### bzr_startup ### Min: 0.157976 -> 0.155976: 1.0128x faster Avg: 0.167575 -> 0.168924: 1.0081x slower Not significant Stddev: 0.00334 -> 0.00716: 2.1463x larger Timeline: http://tinyurl.com/39thymp ### call_method ### Min: 0.878663 -> 0.884666: 1.0068x slower Avg: 0.887148 -> 0.888667: 1.0017x slower Not significant Stddev: 0.02062 -> 0.0207...

Even with Spork, my requests specs are very slow to start running (about 7 seconds). I suspect Rails is booting each time I run "rspec -X spec/requests". Is that true? If so, is there any way I could instruct the web server to keep alive after the specs run so that it would be faster on next run? Are there any resources on how to have better performance on running requests specs with Capybara and Webkit? Having to wait about 7 seconds between consecutive runs is really a blocker for me. If I can''t get it to run faster, I''ll give up on requests specs and o...

Hi, I want to compile a mathematical expression. So shall be faster. It should be as fast as it would be hard coded. With the parser i use it is too slow. Do you know how i can compile in time, so an expression is evaluated faster ? I develop for iphone! Thanks a lot ! Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <...

Hi guys, I am still learning R, and not well familiar with all the apply functions. I am trying to find faster alternatives to replace the for cycle. Is there a faster way to do the example below? nm <- 1000 b <- matrix (rnorm (5000, 0, 1), nrow = 500, ncol = nm) a <- matrix (0, nm, nm) for (i in 1 : nm) { for (j in 1 : nm) { if ( j == i) { next } a[i, j] <- t (b [, i]) %*% b[, j] } } thanks...

Hey, Can anyone answer this question. I am working with really large datasets and most of the programs I have been running take quite some time. I heard that R may be faster in Unix. I sthis true and if so can anyone reccomend which system and requirements may allow things to go faster for? Thanks!! Elizabeth Lawson --------------------------------- [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

useR's, I am trying trying to find out if there is a faster way to do a certain computation. I have successfully used FOR loops and the apply function to do this, but it can take some time to fully compute, but I was wondering if anyone may know of a different function or way to do this: > x [1] 1 2 3 4 5 > xk [1] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0...

LLD supports multi-threading, and it seems to be working well as you can see in a recent result <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=287140>. In short, LLD runs 30% faster with --threads option and more than 50% faster if you are using --build-id (your mileage may vary depending on your computer). However, I don't think most users even don't know about that because --threads is not a default option. I'm thinking to enable --threads by default. We now hav...

...was to use rsync. But then I remembered seeing the `export/import options in man zpool.. And I''ve seen mention of them here too, but didn''t pay attention since I''d noticed no need yet. Now I''m wondering if the export/import sub commands might not be a good bit faster. I''m not talking about massive amounts of data, about 71 GB, but enough that rsync will be at it a good while. I''ve can anyone tell me if the export/import approach would be better?

I have heard that there are some .dll files in wine that are faster than the ones in windows, i have a dual booting vista and ubuntu system, and i have a server that i'm looking to turn into a gaming pc, but i'm not going to buy another copy of windows, so i have installed ubuntu onto it, and am going to import the .dll files from windows, each and every on...

El 03/05/12 12:19, Miroslav Lichvar escribi?: > It makes the C function faster than the corresponding asm routine, so > if it's included I'd suggest to just drop the asm function to not keep > around more asm code than is necessary. With current compilers it is very likely that those routines are already superflous.

...slow is correct: it's >>>> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. >>> >>> I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... > > I've tested it and LLVM is indeed 2x slower to compile, although it > generates > code that is 2x faster to run... > >> Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of >> optimization is doing register allocation? I'm not surprised at all. > > What else does LLVM do with optimizations turned off that makes it > slower? I haven't looked at Go at...

Maybe this is a silly question, but i have a few million files i need to delete but i can't just reformat the volume. Right now the fastest thing i can think of is nice -20 rm -Rf /folder-i-want-to-delete is there a better or faster way to do this? Thanks, Jamie

Hi All. In my C++ code I'm using the libc++ library and my question is about which construct is faster: for(auto line : lines) { ... } or for(auto it = lines.begin(); it != lines.end(); it++) { … } Thanks in advance for any answer. Luca.

Hello, I am just curious...which is faster? Obviously if the machines are the same size and all conditions are equal except for the OS. Regards, Jake Johnson jake@plutoid.com ______________________________________________________________________ Plutoid - http://www.plutoid.com - Shop Plutoid for the best prices on Rims, Car Audio, and P...

Hello, does anybody know another faster function for random multivariate normal variable simulation? I'm using mvrnorm, but as profiling shows, my algorithm spends approximately 50 % in executing mvrnorm function. Maybe some of you knows much faster function for multivariate normal simulation? I would be very gratefull for advices....

On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Bob Wilson wrote: >> I've tested it and LLVM is indeed 2x slower to compile, although it >> generates >> code that is 2x faster to run... >> >>> Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of >>> optimization is doing register allocation? I'm not surprised at all. >> >> What else does LLVM do with optimizations turned off that makes it >> slower? >...