-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Performance/speed comparison with BlurHash #4
Comments
I should probably remove that part of the website. I don't want that to be the focus of this. Partially because the performance doesn't matter too much (encode typically happens once and is stored, and decode is pretty trivial), partially because optimal performance isn't even a goal (it'd be pretty trivial to speed this up even more with SIMD or a hand-rolled Some data points to answer your question, since I should still back it up (1 μs is a microsecond, which is 0.000001 seconds):
One big reason BlurHash is currently slower is that their Another reason BlurHash's Swift implementation is so slow in debug builds is that they are using for-in loops instead of while loops (see e.g. woltapp/blurhash#215). This is a really dumb performance issue with the current Swift compiler implementation. You could argue that debug performance doesn't matter and that readability should be prioritized as long as release performance is good, so maybe BlurHash shouldn't even be changed. Personally I value quick iteration cycles with debug builds so I have tuned ThumbHash's code for that. |
The documentation/demo states the following:
Howmuch faster compared to BlurHash? If you've done tests to compare performance/speed between ThumbHash and BlurHash, it would be nice to show these results.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: