Slow LC 9 Performance - Test Stack, Video, QA Report

[Curry Kenworthy]

Alex:

 > And I was encouraged to try a quick test - which turned out to be
 > a counter-example. LC9 is 4x faster than LC6 on this little test
 > (consistently over different photos).

Thanks! This is a good test. Any counter-examples are great since they 
narrow down the problem areas.

However, now the tricky part...

I tried this and got the same result, first timed LC 6, then LC 9 was 
faster.

But then (for variety) if I tested LC 9 first, then 6 was faster!

So I think OS caching may be playing a role. If so, that adds a new 
level of challenge to the testing and the tester. :)

If I retest the same files repeatedly (both cached) then LC 6 wins, on 
Windows 10, for both. LC 9 was 2x slower for URL and 1.5 times for 
open/read.

(I had modified the code slightly to let me choose a folder full of pics 
and choose URL or open/read, loading all the files with the selected 
method and adding up the total num of bytes.)

How about your code - if you test LC 9 first on new files, or the same 
files repeatedly with both LCs, is LC 9 still the winner?

Best wishes,

Curry K.