Re: [help-GIFT] Optimizing

[risc]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 06:21:38PM +0100, David Squire wrote:
> address@hidden wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >
> > Replying to myself, just to make sure...
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Do you have any objections to the patch above, or the 70* and 80* patches i 
> > submitted last time arround?
> >
> > Speak now, cause as soon as my laptop is set up, i'm commiting. :)
> >   
> 
> Hi Julia,
> 
> Go ahead and commit, I guess. Sorry for the delay.
> 
> As you know, I feel very unconfortable with hardcoding fixed sizes into
> this code. The main reason I have been fiddling with
> gift-add-collection.pl is that I wanted to get familiar with that code
> in preparation for changing the way gift-add-collection.pl and the
> feature extractor interact. This is the plan:
> 
> - first, change things so that the feature extractor can be launched so
> that it expects a list of image filenames on stdin. The perl script will
> then instantiated the feature extractor only once, which should save a
> *lot* of overhead, and send it a list of images to process. Once this is
> set up, we may be able to wind back some some of these hard-coded sizes,
> e.g. the initial handshaking with the feature extractor could include
> specifying max. width and max. height, which could then be used in a
> one-off allocation of the various chunks of memory that will be used for
> all the images to be processed.
> 
> - second, change gift-add-collection.pl so that a particular feature
> extractor can be specified as a command line argument. This is because I
> am doing some research at present using different sorts of
> (collection-specific) texture features, and would like to be able to
> plug this sort of thing into the framework more easily than at present.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
> 
David,

I agree completely. once we're done with your plan, I'll be the first to
advocate removing 60*. however, for the time being, we've got X version,
and X+1 version thats faster. which would you prefer new users are 
running, and judging gift based on?

None of the rest of my work involves hard-coded fixed sizes. Rest
assured, the rest is much more complex. ;)

have you read through the 70* and 80* patches? i'm commiting those as 
well, and would like a technical commentary.

Julia Longtin <address@hidden>