Cool, analysis is always a plus and easier
to discuss than adjectives. Just a few
rather trivial comments.
________________________________
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:02:31 +0200
> From:
> To: itext-questions@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [iText-questions] performance follow up
>
> Hello,
>
> Good news ... after applying the attached patch to trunk and doing yet
> another performance experiment using the previously posted workload these are
> the results:
>
[...]
> Is iText with the patch better than before?
This of course is where you consult Mark Twain. LOL.
iText is or isn't "better than before" ( for some particular
use case) irrespective of the data you currently have
but the question is "does the data allow
you to reject the conclusion that they are have the same
execution times with some confidence level?"
Finding ways to explain or attribute the noise into somekind
of model of course would be a reasonable thing to
consider if you had a few more test cases with some
relevant parameters( number of fonts you will need or something).
The statistics are just a guide to help you
infer something causal- in this case perhaps something
like, " did the patch cause itext to get better?" as you
suggested originally. If you can start describing where and how much it got
better,
response surfaces I guess, then of course you are starting
to develop strategy logic, and could take a given task and feed
it to the patched or non patched version ( among a new family
of altnerative implementations) depending on
the parameters you know about it- obviously for the cases
you have only one decision makes sense andd off hand based
on what you said about nature of patch I don't know of any
case where generating gratuitous garbage is a good strategy LOL.
>
> The paired observation of the means are:
At this stage
it is usually helpful to look at the data, not
just start dumping it into equations you found in a book.
I'm not slamming you at all, just that its helpful
to have a check on your analysis even if you
are using something canned like "R"or a commercial package,
more so if you just wrote the analysis stuff today.
Don't ignore things like histograms etc, after all my
criticisms of PDF for its ability to obscure information
with art, sometimes there are pictures worth a thousand words.
And of course using the pictures to suggest
various sanity checks you can write.
> The Letter PDF looks good i.e. the patch didn't seem to break anything but
> you will have to run the unit tests on it.
LOL, often people forget this step.
Also it sounds like the alt pacakage is still faster by
a clinically significant amount- an amount relevant to someone.
There may be more coding optimiztions or algorithmic optimizations.
for example, converting a string to a byte array could
have some benefits, hard to know off hand since that
may incur more java code then native code to manipulate
but something to consider in a more general case.
With a byte array you may be able
to avoid creating lots of temp string, just make an int
table of the locations of new tokens or pass around indexes
instead of temp token strings. etc etc
>
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
iText-questions mailing list
iText-questions@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions
Buy the iText book: http://www.itextpdf.com/book/
Check the site with examples before you ask questions:
http://www.1t3xt.info/examples/
You can also search the keywords list: http://1t3xt.info/tutorials/keywords/
