Difference between revisions of "Thread:User talk:Skilgannon/KDTree/Regarding PrioQueue/reply (9)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reply to Regarding PrioQueue) |
m (typo) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
- #4 Voidious' Linear search [0.4806]</pre> | - #4 Voidious' Linear search [0.4806]</pre> | ||
| − | Compared to allowing all 6 cores, only allowing 2 cores improved the linear search result (more dramatic than I | + | Compared to allowing all 6 cores, only allowing 2 cores improved the linear search result (more dramatic than I expected!), but it hurt all of the kd-trees still. |
Latest revision as of 15:59, 18 July 2013
Because of how Java runs the JIT and GC in separate threads, I just tried a couple quick things:
If I force Java to run on only one core, I get this result:
- #1 Skilgannon's Cache-hit KDTree [0.0334] - #2 Rednaxela's kd-tree (3rd gen) [0.0343] - #3 Rednaxela's kd-tree (2nd gen) [0.0375] - #4 Voidious' Linear search [0.5844]
If I force Java to run on two cores, I get this result:
- #1 Rednaxela's kd-tree (3rd gen) [0.0280] - #2 Skilgannon's Cache-hit KDTree [0.0304] - #3 Rednaxela's kd-tree (2nd gen) [0.0341] - #4 Voidious' Linear search [0.4806]
Compared to allowing all 6 cores, only allowing 2 cores improved the linear search result (more dramatic than I expected!), but it hurt all of the kd-trees still.
