koffice/krita/benchmarks

[Dmitry Kazakov]

Hah.. These results are quite unobjective =) You were reading and writing
empty pixels, that is a special case in both managers. And doesn't show
actual read/write speed. Though shows a different thing...

Writing of pixels to the empty dm shows in both engines:
1) speed of allocation of a new tile
2) speed of filling this tile with data

Reading from the empty dm shows different things for both engines (remember,
that tiles3 still has "extents"-bug)
For tiles/
1) speed of reading of the default tile, that is preallocated inside dm

For tiles3/
1) speed of allocation of a new tile
2) speed of reading this tile
This should be fixed of course, but i'm still trying to find time for that.

I thing "nominations" should be the following:

1) Reading:
load some image (e.g. hakonepa or smth bigger), and read it
2) Writing:
write hakonepa to dm
3) Clearing:
clear(someColor) - this should be much faster in new engine
4) Reading *empty* dm - reveals my bug
5) Writing *empty* dm. If we subtract 2nd number form this, we'll get pure
time of allocation of new tiles. This should be very interesting result.

6) Btw, we should test Memento mechanism:
     o write-getMemento-repeat
     o read-write-read-getMemento-repeat

-- 
Dmitry Kazakov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20100125/a433c0d7/attachment.htm