Alex:
> And I was encouraged to try a quick test - which turned out to be
> a counter-example. LC9 is 4x faster than LC6 on this little test
> (consistently over different photos).
Thanks! This is a good test. Any counter-examples are great since they
narrow down the problem areas.
However, now the tricky part...
I tried this and got the same result, first timed LC 6, then LC 9 was
faster.
But then (for variety) if I tested LC 9 first, then 6 was faster!
So I think OS caching may be playing a role. If so, that adds a new
level of challenge to the testing and the tester. :)
If I retest the same files repeatedly (both cached) then LC 6 wins, on
Windows 10, for both. LC 9 was 2x slower for URL and 1.5 times for
open/read.
(I had modified the code slightly to let me choose a folder full of pics
and choose URL or open/read, loading all the files with the selected
method and adding up the total num of bytes.)
How about your code - if you test LC 9 first on new files, or the same
files repeatedly with both LCs, is LC 9 still the winner?
Best wishes,
Curry K.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
