Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
performance_comparison [2011/11/28 00:44] admin |
performance_comparison [2015/01/13 13:51] (current) britaldo |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ====== Comparing the Performance of Dinamica EGO Versus ModelBuilder of ArcGis and MacroModeler of IDRISI ====== | + | ====== Comparing the Performance of Dinamica EGO ====== |
| - | Thanks to its [[http://www.csr.ufmg.br/dinamica/training/2_EGO_framework.pdf|innovative framework]], which includes 64-bit native version, parallel processing using a hybrid method named task + work stealing and smart management of data flow, Dinamica EGO can far surpass performance of most common GIS. Here we show a comparison of a least cost pathway calculation implemented on Dinamica EGO versus the same model on [[http://www.esri.com|ModelBuilder of ArcGis]] and [[http://www.clarklabs.org|MacroModeler of IDRISI]]. | + | Thanks to its [[http://www.csr.ufmg.br/dinamica/training/2_EGO_framework.pdf|innovative framework]], which includes 64-bit native version, parallel processing using a hybrid method named task + work stealing and smart management of data flow, Dinamica EGO can far surpass performance of most common GIS. |
| ===== Least Cost Pathway Calculation ===== | ===== Least Cost Pathway Calculation ===== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| </note> | </note> | ||
| - | The example consists of two sets of maps extracted from IDRISI tutorial: land use map (worcwest), source map (newplant) and destination map (powerline). The first one at 15 meter resolution composed of 960 columns x 960 rows and the second at 5 meter resolution composed of 2880 columns x 2880 rows (respectively, folders ''resource'' and ''resource5''). Dinamica EGO models are in folders ''ego_15m'' and ''ego_5m''; we made available models with 2, 3 passes and optimum solution. In general, only two to three passes are needed to approximate to an optimum solution. Respective models implemented on MacroModeler are located in ''Idrisi_15m'' and ''Idrisi_5m'' (you might need to specify the working directory before running the Idrisi model), and folder ''arcgis'' contains the ModelBuilder model((Go to Arctool; you will need to add the model as a toolbox and then click on it to open and run the ModelBuilder model)). | + | The example consists of two sets of maps extracted from IDRISI tutorial: land use map (worcwest), source map (newplant) and destination map (powerline). The first one at 15 meter resolution composed of 960 columns x 960 rows and the second at 5 meter resolution composed of 2880 columns x 2880 rows (respectively, folders ''resource'' and ''resource5''). Dinamica EGO models are in folders ''ego_15m'' and ''ego_5m''; we made available models with 2, 3 passes and optimum solution. In general, only two to three passes are needed to approximate to an optimum solution. Respective models implemented on MacroModeler are located in ''Idrisi_15m'' and ''Idrisi_5m'' ((you might need to specify the working directory before running the Idrisi model)), and folder ''arcgis'' contains the ModelBuilder model((Go to Arctool; you will need to add the model as a toolbox and then click on it to open and run the ModelBuilder model)). |
| ==== Results ==== | ==== Results ==== | ||
| - | Figures below show the pathways calculated with three passes and another with optimum solution using Dinamica EGO as well as the pathways output from MacroModeler and ModelBuilder. Table below show the performance figures for the three platforms. To run the tests, we used a laptop VAIO Intel i5 CPU with 8 GB of RAM, solid state disk, and Windows Seven 64 bits. Dinamica version was 1.8, IDRISI version was IDRISI 32, v.2 and Taiga. ArcGis version was 9.3. | + | Figures below show the pathways calculated with three passes and another with optimum solution using Dinamica EGO as well as the pathways output from MacroModeler and ModelBuilder. |
| {{:ego3_optimum1.png?nolink&300|Results produced by Dinamica EGO}} {{:ego3_optimum_idrisi_arcgis.png?nolink&300|Comparison of results produced by all softwares}} | {{:ego3_optimum1.png?nolink&300|Results produced by Dinamica EGO}} {{:ego3_optimum_idrisi_arcgis.png?nolink&300|Comparison of results produced by all softwares}} | ||
| - | |||
| - | For the 15 meter models, Dinamica EGO model using three passes was 120 times faster than IDRISI MacroModeler and 264 times faster than ArcGIS. For the 5 meter version, Dinamica EGO model with three passes took only 46 seconds, while both MacroModeler and ModelBuilder weren't unable to run the model. This advantage can be even much higher as Dinamica EGO models run faster on multicore computer. For example, on a laptop DELL Alienware with 8 cores, the processing time of the model with 15 meters and two passes takes less than 2 seconds, almost doubling performance, whereas the computing time for the other GIS platforms increased due to slower access to disk. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ^ Test Results ^^^ | ||
| - | | Spatial resolution | 15 m | 5 m | | ||
| - | | Dinamica EGO using 2 passes | 3 sec | 31 sec | | ||
| - | | Dinamica EGO using 3 passes | 5 sec | 46 sec | | ||
| - | | Dinamica EGO using optimum solution | 38 sec | 6 min 6 sec | | ||
| - | | Idrisi MacroModeler | 10 min | crashed | | ||
| - | | ArcGIS ModelBuilder | 22 min | crashed | | ||