Re: [Summary-Talk] Summary Speed

[Jason Linhart <jason@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for posting your test results.

The second and subsequent runs are faster because OS X would have had 
everything cached in RAM, and would hardly have needed to access the hard 
disk. That is not a realistic situation for many people running Summary. 
Many logs will be too large to get cached in RAM. So I call OS X 7-10% 
faster by your numbers (based on the results from the first run).

Jason


On 3/28/03 10:16 PM postmaster (postmaster@helmboy.com) wrote:

>Just as a test, I took my B&W g3-400 512 ram WD 60 gig drive and ran
>some speed tests.
>
>Config a: OS 9.2.2 G3 400
>Config b: OSX 10.2.4 G3 400
>Config c: OS 9.2.2 G4 550
>Config d: OS 10.2.4 G4 550
>
>Each set of tests were after a cold boot. Each test was run after
>letting the machine sit for 2 minutes to stabilize. All results in
>seconds. 495441 records run with 5 sub reports, each with 1 filter.
>
>config  a  b  c  d
>------ -- -- -- --
>run 1: 47 44 39 35
>run 2: 47 33 39 25
>run 3: 47 33 39 24
>
>It's interesting that the osx speeds up by 33-40% after the first run.
>The Classic version was consistant each time it ran. Also note, that the
>g4 was 33% faster in time, but 37% faster in CPU MHz,
>
>Bottom line: altivec doesn't help. OSX also seems faster by 42-65%

-----------------
Jason@Summary.Net
-----------------
Dr. Seuss books . . . can be read and enjoyed on several levels. For
example, 'One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish' can be deconstructed
as a searing indictment of the narrow-minded binary counting system.
  -- Peter van der Linden, Expert C Programming, Deep C Secrets
-------------
Go to <http://summary.net/list.html> to update subscription info.