Regarding PrioQueue

Jump to navigation Jump to search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:User talk:Skilgannon/KDTree/Regarding PrioQueue/reply (10).

So, it turns out that if I use Oracle Java in Windows instead of OpenJDK on Linux, the performance is pretty different: 

 - #1 Skilgannon's Cache-hit KDTree [0.0275]
 - #2 Rednaxela's kd-tree (3rd gen) [0.0290]
 - #3 Rednaxela's kd-tree (2nd gen) [0.0309]
 - #4 Voidious' Linear search [0.5553]

The relative performance of things looks much more similar to what you saw, with a smaller difference between my 3rd and 2nd gen tree, with your one performing better.

Between OracleJava/Windows and OpenJDK/Linux, my 3rd gen tree and your cache-hit tree, swap places it seems. 

java version "1.7.0_25"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_25-b17)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.25-b01, mixed mode)

(Also turns out the server JVM is much better suited for the kd-tree test than the client JVM. Edited this post to switch the results to those using the server JVM)

Rednaxela (talk)‎02:43, 19 July 2013

Client JVM is not designed for heavy processing, like how the rumble is.

MN (talk)‎22:51, 19 July 2013
 
 
Retrieved from "http://robowiki.net/wiki/Thread:User_talk:Skilgannon/KDTree/Regarding_PrioQueue/reply_(10)#Regarding_PrioQueue_3583"