3 ms·
The 4th paragraph explained why they didn't go this way: > We were reluctant to use a NoSQL solution as this would require retrieving the pixels through a sock
by riobard 15y ago
The 4th paragraph explained why they didn't go this way:
> We were reluctant to use a NoSQL solution as this would require retrieving the pixels through a socket, storing it in memory and then processing them. It makes more sense to process it where it’s stored.
- ori_b 15y agoMaybe I don't understand the problem,but that sounds like some serious premature optimization. 1.2 mpix is not much data.
- dagw 15y agoAccording to the article their Node solution took 4 seconds to run (down from 7 seconds after some optimization) and their C solution 0.03 seconds. Now maybe they could have sped up their node code more, but those sort of improvements hardly count as premature optimization.
- ori_b 15y agoSince the usual expected slowdown for jit compiled scripts is somewhere on the order of 5 times (obviously, this is a very loose guess, and the number will vary by script, style, and workload), I wonder what they could have been doing to cause a 200x slowdown.