Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:K-NN algorithm benchmark/Cache effects on benchmark/reply (2)"
m (Reply to Cache effects on benchmark) |
m (addition) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
One could put it in a reference bot yeah, though the tests would be far slower and less consistent, thus requiring a much greater number of test iterations to have a reliable result. | One could put it in a reference bot yeah, though the tests would be far slower and less consistent, thus requiring a much greater number of test iterations to have a reliable result. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Oh, and in any case, nice job with making a tree that much faster with the large datasets :) | ||
Revision as of 06:13, 17 July 2013
Running them all at the same time could make sense, but I would suggest being if you do that, because the order that they get run in may matter. Even when running them one at a time in sequence, I've recall noticing that the order in which they are run could very slightly impact the apparent performance, I suspect due to caching, JIT, and/or garbage collection characteristics. It's been a while, but IIRC the System.gc() call I have in there between running different trees was to lessen that effect.
Cache performance is one of those things that's tricky with Robocode, because your robot is also sharing the CPU with another bot which could be doing who knows that with it's memory accesses. For that reason I wouldn't trust optimizations for better caching behavior to necessarily pan out in practice with bots. I may be wrong about that though.
One could put it in a reference bot yeah, though the tests would be far slower and less consistent, thus requiring a much greater number of test iterations to have a reliable result.
Oh, and in any case, nice job with making a tree that much faster with the large datasets :)
