On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Bryan,
I would say that my tool is slightly faster, but I can't say for sure.
You should probably use 'time ./blah' - the user/system times are far more stable and representing performance than time.time().
Ah thanks.
bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$ time ./pngds PSF_B-90003.png PSF_B-90003-pngds.png --width 240 --height 360
real 0m45.380s user 0m3.000s sys 0m0.080s bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$ time ./pngds PSF_B-90003.png PSF_B-90003-pngds.png --width 240 --height 360
real 0m11.095s user 0m2.920s sys 0m0.040s bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$ time ./pngds PSF_B-90003.png PSF_B-90003-pngds.png --width 240 --height 360
real 0m15.853s user 0m2.960s sys 0m0.070s bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$
ImageMagick:
bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$ time convert PSF_B-90003.png -size 240x360 PSF_B-90003-im.png
real 0m7.660s user 0m2.500s sys 0m0.370s bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$ time convert PSF_B-90003.png -size 240x360 PSF_B-90003-im.png
real 0m5.736s user 0m2.560s sys 0m0.370s bryan@hemlock:~/projects/pngds$ time convert PSF_B-90003.png -size 240x360 PSF_B-90003-im.png
real 0m3.998s user 0m2.480s sys 0m0.310s
ImageMagick is slightly faster here.
Did you try benchmarking GraphicsMagick? thats stability/performance fork, that others use instead of IM.
No, only the regular im.
Bryan