How did you measure memory usage? I'm guessing it excludes the disk cache that the binary phrase table functionally depends on. Also, were you translating new sentences while measuring or previously translated sentences?
On 03/07/13 00:47, myounggun jang wrote: > Thank you for your help. > I tested compact table on iPhone. > however memory usage, loading time and translation time is similar with > binary phrase table. > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > take a look at the charts in > http://www.statmt.org/mtm12/pub/marcin-mtm2012.pdf > > If you still have questions, drop me an e-mail. > Best, > Marcin > > W dniu 06.03.2013 11:20, myounggun jang pisze: > > Hello > > I found that compact phrase table is 6 to 7 times smaller than binary > > phrase table. > > I am interested about memory usage, loading time, translation time. > > Data size is also important, however memory usage and time is more > > important to me. > > Can I get a data about comparison between two table? > > Thank you. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Moses-support mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support > > _______________________________________________ > Moses-support mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moses-support mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support > _______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
