>Also, were the numbers stable? That is, your two results are
approximately 65s vs 55s which is about 15% reduction in time. If you ran
the comparison a couple more >times with different matrices, is always
about 15%?
Well the test was based on the fact that the code generates a real
transformation matrix, by constructing a random orthonormal basis vector
triplet *x*,*y*,*z*, i.e. ||*x*||=1, ||*y*||=1, ||*z*||=1, *x*·*y*=0, *x*·*z
*=0, *y*·*y*=0, *x*×*y*=*z*, plus a random translation vector *t*.
My *bn_mat_inverse()* is clearly faster than the current libbn
implementation -- even if mine does a full 4x4 matrix inverse, and the old
libbn one something else! The most important point is that mine is easy to
verify, and does work on all matrices you care to throw at it (that are not
singular); the speed boost is just an added bonus.
My *bn_mat_determinant()* is only slightly faster than the current libbn
implementation. However, mine is much more robust wrt. compiler
optimizations: the existing implementation is only fast if the compiler can
optimize the code (which might uncover bugs elsewhere in the code,
considering the code base is pretty old). Considering how robust and simple
it is, and that it is *never slower* than the existing implementation (in
fact is significantly faster if the compiler does not perform heavy
optimization), I'd recommend using mine instead.
Chees!
Nyah
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Check Nyah <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well Sean,
> here is the code I used to test the both the new and old algorithms.
> Actually I did not write all of it from scratch. But adapted the code to
> suit the test i needed to perform. Added a make file to enable compiler
> code easily.
>
> Cheers!
> Nyah
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2013, at 01:25 PM, Check Nyah <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Sean,
>> Just ran the tests comparing the old and new routines for computing the
>> determinant and which gave me the following results:
>>
>>
>> Excellent Nyah. That definitely looks like a nice improvement. Can you
>> attach the test you used?
>>
>> Also, were the numbers stable? That is, your two results are
>> approximately 65s vs 55s which is about 15% reduction in time. If you ran
>> the comparison a couple more times with different matrices, is always about
>> 15%?
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Sean
>>
>> p.s. Please remember about bottom-posting and deleting irrelevant
>> portions.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
