i7 performance comparison

multiplicationDoubleFUNC2 (ConstvectorDouble> State ) { Doublex = state[0]; Doubley = state[1]; DoubleF; F= (4-2.1*x*x + POW (x,4) /3.0) *x*x + X*y + (-4+4.0* y*y) *y*y; returnF;}//Func3: All with the POW () function to calculateDoubleFUNC3 (ConstvectorDouble> State ) { Doublex = state[0]; Doubley = state[1]; DoubleF; F= (4-2.1*pow (x,2) + POW (x,4) /3.0) *pow (x,2) + X*y + (-4+4.0* POW (Y,2)) *pow (Y,2); returnF;}intmain () {vectorDouble> Initialstate (2); initialstate[0] =0.0898; initia

SSD Performance testSequential Write 16k ioPS 85061.08Sequential Write 8k ioPS 146250.93Sequential Write 4k ioPS 239816.69Sequential write 2k ioPS 294540.87Sequential Write 1k ioPS 347170.06Random Write 16k ioPS 21865.24Random Write 8k ioPS 26602.18Random Write 4k ioPS 34485.49Random write 2k ioPS 35115.20Random Write 1k ioPS 34913.40Sequential Read 16k ioPS 157199.17Sequential Read 8k ioPS 239133.22Sequential Read 4k ioPS 361864.16Sequential read 2k

number 8094, not much to say, look directly at controller: @RestController public class HelloController { private final String TARGET_HOST = "http://localhost:8092"; private WebClient webClient; public HelloController() { this.webClient = WebClient.builder().baseUrl(TARGET_HOST).build(); } @GetMapping("/hello/{latency}") public MonoRun the test for 6000 users:Throughput 2195 req/sec,95% response duration 109ms.The key is that WebClient

String.h based on the assembly implementation of strcmp, and ordinary strcmp, for the number of cyclic calls and the length of the string lookup 2 latitude to do a performance comparison test. #include The test results are as follows, the performance is 3~4 times when the matching string length is sufficient.Input loop:5000,isamelen:100000loop:5000,strcm

For HBase in single column family single column qualifier and single column family multiple column qualifier two scenarios, batch put write performance comparison The following is a combination of HBase source code to explain the phenomenon of simple analysis. 1. Test results When the client batch writes, the TPS and RPC times of single row and Single-column group are very different, and the test data in

-22 16:33:26Myisam_nt count:10000 used time:2.1132440567Myisam_ts 04-10-22 16:33:26Execsql:begin;Execsql:commit;04-10-22 16:33:29Myisam_ts count:10000 used time:2.65475201607INNODB_NA_NB 04-10-22 16:33:29Execsql:set autocommit = 004-10-22 16:33:31INNODB_NA_NB count:10000 used time:2.51947999001Innodb_na_be 04-10-22 16:33:31Execsql:set autocommit = 0Execsql:begin;Execsql:commit;04-10-22 16:33:35Innodb_na_be count:10000 used time:3.85625100136INNODB_AU_NB 04-10-22 16:33:35Execsql:set autocommit =

, physical read 0 times, read 0 times, LOB logic read 0 times, lob physical read 0 times, lob read 0 times.Table ' TB '. Scan count 2, logical read 46 times, physical read 0 times, read 0 times, LOB logic read 0 times, lob physical read 0 times, lob read 0 times.SQL Server Execution Time:CPU time = 734 milliseconds, elapsed time = 769 milliseconds.(2012 rows affected)Table ' #t2___________000000000065 '. Scan count 1, logical read 1677 times, physical read 0 times, read 0 times, LOB logic read 0

Comparison of Java toString Performance Optimization Solutions Who cares about toString performance? No one! Unless you have a large amount of data in batch processing, using toString produces a lot of logs. Then, when you investigate why it is so slow, you will realize that most toString methods use introspection, which can be optimized. However, let's take a l

Jquerymobile is a JS frame under the mobile platform, with PhoneGap not a dime relationship. PhoneGap in fact, in the domestic share is not high, many people in order to experience like to do traditional native mobile phone applications. And WebApp's share of the current is getting smaller, Because more and more people do not like to use the mobile browser to experience the site specifically for the mobile platform. I think your comparison should be n

during pressure measurement: SAR 1 Java Tomcat vs PHP CLI Server test data comparison: Java Tomcat PHP CLI Server Memory consumption before test (MB) 93.4 20.0 Memory consumption after test (MB) 185.2 20.5 Process CPU usage (%CPU, the smaller the better) Approx. 300% Approx. 95% System CPU Idle value (%idle, the bigger the better)

First, we need to know the basic principles of the Performance Comparison of the routing technology. Q: exchange network routing technology. A: exchange is the development direction of network technology. The routing technology is an important part of the exchange network. The correct choice of Routing Technology in the exchange network will directly affect the overall