Hello Thomas,
The problem is I run your example and what I get did contradict what you
had reported:
In my case the code using ROOT is 2.5 times (921) as fast as your code
with no ROOT (2643).
But .... I was using VC6 compiler, I do not use VC7 because I still
have troubles with VC7. Sometime the Minuit results made by the code
compiled with VC7 are wrong.
And now I got other numbers. I am calling your attention the ROOT
libraries were not changed, only your test was re-compiled
With ROOT No ROOT
VC6 921 2643
VC7 2673 841
???? I have no explanation yet.
I would someone on roottalk who has an access to both compilers check
these numbers and report us.
Thank you, Valeri
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Nisius [mailto:tnisius@web.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:02 PM
> To: fine@bnl.gov
> Cc: roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: [ROOT] execution speed of compiled programs using
> ROOT
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if I missed the point; here is a short description of what I
want to
> do
> I have a program for medical image reconstruction that needs to write
lots
> of histograms and profiles to disk for further analysis. Currently
this
> program uses PAW. Since the data analysis with PAW is not a trivial
task
> for people at clinical sites, we want to change the program to use
root
> and provide an analysis tool. Within this program (the image
> reconstruction) I observed a significant slowdown of all routines even
> those, that are not related to root.
> The example I provided, just showed, that even such simple pieces of
code
> are influenced by root.
>
> Now to my question:
> how can cope with the slowdown that occurs whenever I link against the
> root libs?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Thomas Nisius
>
>
> >Hello Thomas,
> > Could you elaborate what was the in initial cause of your
investigation?
> > For example for sure ROOT needs some time to be initialized since it
> loads dozen the share >libraries (DLL's).
> > To get the right answer one should ask the right question. What
question
> you want to be >answered.
> >I am really reluctant to go deeper at this point. The program you
> prepared (with "constant" >only loop) is no use to do any solid
> conclusion.
> >On other hand I am not keen to start the discussion how such kind of
the
> code should look like >with no solid reason.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
__
> Die sicherste Form der Kommunikation: E-Mails verschluesseln,
Spam-Filter,
> Adressverifizierung, digitale Unterschrift: http://freemail.web.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:50:14 MET