Actually, yes.  I'm glad to hear that we have a better implementation.
If we can avoid locking as much as possible.  UTF2 should help in this
regard.

--
Michael Leibowitz
Software Engineer, Channel Platform Solutions Group
Intel Corporation
michael.leibowitz at intel.com
+1 503 264 7621


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:39 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [dev] Bounty for performance improvements
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>slightly off topic, but speaking of performance improvements: Didn't
>these numbers about the expense of the reference counters on older
Intel
>processors (pre Hyperthreading, say Pentium III) come initially form
you?
>
>I changed the implementation of the reference counters in m191 so on
>older processors should we see 5-6 percent improvements on the more
>notorious docs while hopefully not damaging the performance for current
>CPU's.
>
>Heiner
>
>Leibowitz, Michael wrote:
>> It's very easy to measure how long it takes to open a file.  You can
use
>> the UNO API and gettimeofday.  If just want something quick and
dirty,
>> you can just use RTL_LOGFILE.
>>
>> However, figuring out what is a typical document is not.  For our
>> performance profiling, we have a collection of about 100 documents
>> culled from inside of Intel.  This is an imperfect sample, and we've
>> never felt comfortable with a particular set of documents as being
>> representative.
>>
>> BTW, I'd also like to plug i#53055 at this time for speeding .doc
>> imports (it even saves memory)
>>
>> --
>> Michael Leibowitz
>> Software Engineer, Channel Platform Solutions Group
>> Intel Corporation
>> michael.leibowitz at intel.com
>> +1 503 264 7621
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Utomo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:07 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: RE: [dev] Bounty for performance improvements
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>>
>>> My original idea was.
>>> To make Ooo faster opening the Microsoft Office files. (but without
>> adding
>>> memory usage by OOo)
>>> Especially for user with old computer, such as PIII with around 128
>> memory
>>> (which now mostly suffer from the huge memory usage by Ooo, and they
>> feel
>>> very long time opening the Microsoft office files). I hear many PIII
>> user
>>> complain about this, and this make them stop using Ooo. And I think
it
>> need
>>> to be improved, so it can make them happy and use Ooo.
>>>
>>> (I will provide some test file when the bounty start.)
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> Original Ooo without patch open the file in 60 second
>>> Ooo with patch open the file in 30 second
>>> In My opinion this is a 50% Improvements.
>>>
>>> But sometimes it is not easy to measure how long opening a files is.
>>> ( I think judges will help decide it)
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Utomo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:35 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [dev] Bounty for performance improvements
>>>
>>> Utomo wrote:
>>>> I am waiting and open for suggestions.
>>>> Is there somebody can help me to determine how is the performance
>>>> improvements measured ?
>>>>
>>>> Utomo
>>> I have a few comments:
>>>
>>> Performance should be quantified and explained by the submitter. In
>>> other words, the submitter should indicate how to test and
demonstrate
>> a
>>> speed improvement.
>>>
>>> Memory and runtime both sounds like improvements to me.
>>>
>>> Broader impact should carry more weight. For example, a 100%
>> improvement
>>> in sort speed is probably not as important as a 10% improvement in
>>> screen redraw time because the screen is almost always updated. By
the
>>> same token, a 10% improvement in screen redraw may also beat a 20%
>>> improvement in macro run-time.
>>>
>>> I would probably use imprecise statements as those, and then after
some
>>> prioritizing, leave the final decision to public voting if it is not
>>> obvious as to the final winner, or simply decide up front, that
public
>>> voting will be done.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Pitonyak
>>> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
>>> My Book: http://www.hentzenwerke.com/catalog/oome.htm
>>> Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>>> See Also: http://documentation.openoffice.org/HOW_TO/index.html
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>--
>Jens-Heiner Rechtien
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to