Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39210 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2006 17:38:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Apr 2006 17:38:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 80615 invoked by uid 500); 21 Apr 2006 17:37:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80568 invoked by uid 500); 21 Apr 2006 17:37:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80557 invoked by uid 99); 21 Apr 2006 17:37:56 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:37:56 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of dfridlender@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.202 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.202] (HELO nz-out-0102.google.com) (64.233.162.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:37:55 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 12so460324nzp for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:37:35 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ejZu67SIfaT3Tak7ryxPYFrSbSKENEDts8BRqkSTeefyjc4rUO+3xEwuyuzsNb97xoJvDhbDWjpG8uSnrbE8/+j5ifs4snu582bFHncqoOfxroJFgDiJxLoTVymbQKWsjtQmeIwsQHruscCn6rRkjuLN3s6gaHWprsq1M8ivka8= Received: by 10.64.193.10 with SMTP id q10mr753267qbf; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.199.12 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:37:34 -0300 From: "Daniel Fridlender" To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: ITC's java.math package contribution In-Reply-To: <6694B22B6436BC43B429958787E4549801D5E45E@mssmsx402nb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <6694B22B6436BC43B429958787E4549801D5E45E@mssmsx402nb> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi Elena, thank you very much for having a look at our contribution and reporting the results of your tests. We have also done some method-by-method comparisons, our results were similar to yours. I agree with you that the difference in performance in methods of BigInteger is due to the internal representation and to the implemented algorithms. Regards, Daniel Fridlender On 4/21/06, Semukhina, Elena V wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > > I've taken a look at ITC's implementation of java.math (original > Harmony-199 donation) and tried to compare it to one donated by > Harmony-39 on the method-by-method base. > > For example, I've tested about 30 BigInteger's methods and the result is > the following: > > > > - 10 ITC's methods are slower, > > - 5 methods are approximately the same in both implementations, > > - 14 ITC's methods are faster. > > > > This is determined either by internal representation (which is different > in both implementations) or algorithmically. > > On the other hand, I must admit that ITC's BigDecimal arithmetic is > faster while, for example, toString() is slower for the values I've > randomly chosen. > > > > I agree with you that real performance advantages should be demonstrated > by real applications. > > > > On the whole, the package is well designed and the code quality is good. > > > The disadvantage I've noticed is unimplemented serialization but this > could be easily eliminated. > > > > Regards, > > Elena Semukhina > > Intel Middleware Products Division > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Daniel Fridlender [mailto:dfridlender@gmail.com] > > >Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:52 AM > > >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >Subject: ITC's java.math package contribution > > > > > >Dear all, > > > > > >on behalf of ITC I have updated our contribution of the package > > >java.math including some recent optimizations (HARMONY-199). I think > > >it would be interesting to compare our implementation with the one > > >donated by Intel (HARMONY-39). In order to do that, it would be nice > > >to have a collection of applications were the package is used. > > > > > >So far, we have tried both implementations with a realistic > > >application (RSA key generation) and our implementation turned out to > > >have a significantly better performance. > > > > > >Another point is that we implemented the full 1.5 API functionality, > > >which in the case of BigDecimal amounts to having about twice as many > > >methods as in the 1.4.2 API. This may have little significance now, > > >but it will definitely be important when Harmony moves to 1.5 > > > > > >Our implementation uses 1.5 syntax since the 1.5 API includes an Enum > > >(RoundingMode). > > >It should be easy to obtain a 1.4.2 implementation of the 1.4.2 API > from > > >it. > > > > > >Some more information about our development can be found at > > >http://www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/math/ > > > > > >Daniel Fridlender > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > > >For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org