On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)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