Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cgal-discuss - Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance

Subject: CGAL users discussion list

List archive

Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Marius Kintel <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:43:41 -0500
  • Authentication-results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None ; spf=None ; spf=None
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23:AMyDSRLguChu2Vd+6NmcpTZWNBhigK39O0sv0rFitYgUKfTxwZ3uMQTl6Ol3ixeRBMOAu6wC27ud4vCocFdDyKjCmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWC0YLnhqvjq9X6WEZhunmUWftKNhK4rAHc5IE9oLBJDeIP8CbPuWZCYO9MxGlldhq5lhf44dqsrtY4q3wD86Fpy8kVWqrze+E0TKdTES89G2Ez/szi8xfZHiWV4X5Jd2wMkwdTSyvE6g33Wt+ltyLgt/dm8CqbO9H7SfYyVCj0vPQjcwPhlCpSb21xy2rQkMEl1K8=

It’s been a while since I tested this, but I seem to remember that the
majority of CPU time was spent doing Gmpq memory management. I’m not familiar
with CLR, but it wouldn’t surprise me if memory management causes significant
CLR overhead.

-Marius

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 04:08 AM, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory)
> <>
> wrote:
>
> The increase of the runtime is due to the fact that your input are
> identical which leads to many filter failures.
>
> No idea about the CLR, I've never tried.
>
> Sebastien.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of Page