[GSoC] 7th coding week

[Sarah Berkemer]

Hello Eric,
we also discussed this idea some days ago and in fact, we planned to start
with the parallelization next week. This week, I would like to work on the
code since I found out which part of the current version makes it slow when
running it with the large input.

Sarah


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Eric Talevich <eric.talevich at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Sarah and Team BioHaskell,
>
> Do you suppose the performance tradeoffs would be any different after the
> application is parallelized? (For example, some portion of the workflow
> that is more difficult to parallelize begins to dominate CPU usage -- or
> perhaps one data structure parallelizes better than another.) If so, would
> it make sense to first do the parallelization as you described in your
> project plan, and then return to profiling-guided optimizations?
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Sarah Berkemer <sarah.berkemer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> here is my blogpost for this week:
>> http://biohaskell.org/GSoC_blog/Weeks_6and7
>> Last week I did some debugging and further changes in the current version
>> of the code. I also did profiling statistics from both versions, the
>> original and the current one with a small input. It can be seen that with
>> just a small input, both version need almost the same time. For a large
>> input, the original version is still faster. This week I will try to find
>> the reason for that.
>>
>> Have a nice week,
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GSoC mailing list
>> GSoC at mailman.open-bio.org
>> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/gsoc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/gsoc/attachments/20140701/8a92c010/attachment.html>