Skip to content
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

Upgrade to 1 0 jessie #7

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 19, 2019
Merged

Upgrade to 1 0 jessie #7

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 19, 2019

Conversation

JessieMcVicar
Copy link

Updated julia version.

@JoshChristie
Copy link
Collaborator

Nice, looks good. Have you tested whether there were improvements in speed the interators, particularly in_cuboid?

@JoshChristie
Copy link
Collaborator

Update travis and appveyor files to build 1.0

* Fixed Voxelization Testset Error's
* Fixed Rasterizer and Voxelization testset warnings
* Fixed Neighbouring voxel test set errors
* Fixed Neighbouring voxel test set
* Changed compatablity in Project.toml
* Gitignore added
* Updates Travis and appveyor files
* Appveyor fix
* Re added Test to Project.toml
*using Pkg.METADATA_compatible_uuid("SpatialGrids")
@msbahal
Copy link

msbahal commented Nov 19, 2019

Nice, looks good. Have you tested whether there were improvements in speed the interators, particularly in_cuboid?

I ran a quick test of the in_cuboid function and was actually surprised by the performace of the SparseVoxelGrid function.

I ran the following with rand to use the same seed value:

points3d = rand(rng, Float64, 3, 10000000) .* 10000.0

@time grid = SparseVoxelGrid(points3d, 2.0)

voxel_list = [ (100,100,100)]

@time length(collect(in_cuboid(grid, voxel_list[1], 2)))

The second line took 41.29 secs for the v1.0 package whereas it took 92.13 secs for the older package.

The fourth line took 0.00014 secs in v1.0 whereas it took 0.000056 secs for v0.6. This was on the second and subsequent function call. First query always took way longer.

I think the gain from second line definitely outweights the loss in the fourth line. What say?

Also could I get an approve if you're happy with the results and code @JoshChristie @prabodha007

@msbahal
Copy link

msbahal commented Nov 19, 2019

Update travis and appveyor files to build 1.0

Travis and Appveyor tests pass now!

@JoshChristie
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks like a nice gain.

@msbahal msbahal merged commit c528c68 into master Nov 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants