Hi Brice! On 7/8/07, Brice Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did some testing on a directory containing 1000 jpeg images. I am only timing the "listing entries" part since this is where identify is called. The next part might be much longer because it generates thumbnails and scaled images (but it is generally only done once, not when regenerating a new gallery). 1) with a regular llgal 0.13.12, it takes: real 1m41.503s user 1m15.733s sys 0m11.617s
Well, I think you have a faster computer than me :) Or maybe you're using small images? Remember that nowadays 7-9 megapixel consumer grade cameras are pretty common. The problem with identify is that for some obscure reason, takes time proportionally to the image size. In my desktop (1,7ghz cpu), running identify * (so no extra fork penalty) in a directory with 189 images (7 megapixel each), takes 146.230s. A full llgal run without the identify in the same dir, takes 13.759s. So it's and order of magnitude less. You can imagine how long it takes in my webserver which has a 500mhz cpu! And the main point is that this is executed each time, even if I already had build the captions catalog. Really, if it wasn't for my modification, I'd have dropped llgal already, because is inusable for me.
3) when using 'file' instead of 'identify' (and without writing the code to parse the output of file, which is not trivial since I support multiple image types):
maybe file -i which gives an easily parseable mime type, but you still have to fork out
5) with the Image::Infos perl library (seems to detect broken images well too): real 0m1.444s user 0m0.672s sys 0m0.560s
this seems the real contender!
(4) is already a very nice improvement and has the advantage of being very easy to integrate in the current code. But the best seems to be (5) and it should be easy to integrate too. However, there's only a 16s difference between them, which means about 1 second for 60 images. If ExifTool brings other interesting advantages, it might be worse using it anyway even if it is a little bit slower. I'll look at all this more deeply and release a new llgal in the near future.
Well it's not a 16s difference, it's 12 times faster!! It is really a huge difference.
Anyway, I'll try to run such a test before new releases in the future, I didn't expect such a timing difference (even if running llgal on 1000 images is probably not so common :)
Not so... I have thousand of images in my current gallery setup, which I want to replace. People with digital cameras tend to take lots of pictures :) regards, Martín. -- Martín Ferrari
