On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 12:16 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Eric Anholt writes:
>
> > Jason Ekstrand writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Helland
> >> wrote:
> >>> The performance numbers (shader-db runtime) are:
> >>>
> >>> Difference at 95.0% confidence
> >>> -14.7608 +/
2015-04-16 21:16 GMT+02:00 Eric Anholt :
> Eric Anholt writes:
>
>> Jason Ekstrand writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Helland
>>> wrote:
The performance numbers (shader-db runtime) are:
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-14.7608 +/- 3.36786
-9
Eric Anholt writes:
> Jason Ekstrand writes:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Helland
>> wrote:
>>> The performance numbers (shader-db runtime) are:
>>>
>>> Difference at 95.0% confidence
>>> -14.7608 +/- 3.36786
>>> -9.05064% +/- 2.06501%
>>> (Original runtime was 160 se
Jason Ekstrand writes:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Helland
> wrote:
>> The performance numbers (shader-db runtime) are:
>>
>> Difference at 95.0% confidence
>> -14.7608 +/- 3.36786
>> -9.05064% +/- 2.06501%
>> (Original runtime was 160 seconds)
>
> Good Work!
>
> I had o
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Helland
wrote:
> The performance numbers (shader-db runtime) are:
>
> Difference at 95.0% confidence
> -14.7608 +/- 3.36786
> -9.05064% +/- 2.06501%
> (Original runtime was 160 seconds)
Good Work!
I had one comment on the hash set patch. With t
The performance numbers (shader-db runtime) are:
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-14.7608 +/- 3.36786
-9.05064% +/- 2.06501%
(Original runtime was 160 seconds)
While the profile data looked promising for increasing the
table size we start with, decreasing load factor, and integer hashin
