SwizzleStack
01-30-2009, 09:17 PM
I wanted to test import speed of both programs to see what I might be looking at if I wanted to import a large quantity of old hand histories. I realize that both programs are structured differently and have different recommended maintenance procedures which might need to be taken into account, as well as some other factors possibly. I also realize that when you are playing, how fast each program imports 100,000 hands isn't really relevant, but if you have a large quantity of old hands to import, or you play on multiple machines with multiple databases, etc, this test could be relevant to you.
As far procedure, I used the latest releases of both, PT3 V3.00 Build 4, and HEM v1.08 beta 6. I created new databases for both, and then HH text files (from Full Tilt) 100 megabytes at a time were imported, which was about 1200ish files per sample, and roughly 100,000 hands. In the first sample there were 99 duplicate hands. No duplicates in any of the other 4 samples. Also, fyi, each was done with no other programs running after a restart so as to compare processes similarly.
# Size Files Hands HEMtime PT3time
1 100 1220 101337 0:27:36 0:11:40
2 100 1235 102336 0:36:29 0:15:03
3 100 1227 101010 52:24.0 0:16:32
4 100 1212 101876 1:05:58 0:23:37
5 100 1250 102840 1:20:14 0:23:51
I also should note that in every sample except for the first one, HEM had less error hands than PT3. The error counts were 20,3,1,2,1 for HEM and 18,7,5,7,8 for PT3.
Lastly, After the second sample, I did the recommended db maintenance (vacuum & analyze HEM with PGadmin, and cluster, vacuum, analyze & cache PT3 in it's DB Housekeeping). It took 0:08:40 for HEM, and 0:10:14 for PT3 (0:03:19 for the vacuum & analyze).
I will do a few more samples for anyone that cares, but so far anyway, PT3 took less than 1/2 the time to import per sample, and HEM seems to be slowing down more as the db gets larger. Anyone who has any ideas how to speed up either, I'd love to hear ideas.
Thanks,
SwizzleStack
(I'll be posting this on both the PT3 & HEM forum, as well as possibly http://www.pokersoftware.com)
As far procedure, I used the latest releases of both, PT3 V3.00 Build 4, and HEM v1.08 beta 6. I created new databases for both, and then HH text files (from Full Tilt) 100 megabytes at a time were imported, which was about 1200ish files per sample, and roughly 100,000 hands. In the first sample there were 99 duplicate hands. No duplicates in any of the other 4 samples. Also, fyi, each was done with no other programs running after a restart so as to compare processes similarly.
# Size Files Hands HEMtime PT3time
1 100 1220 101337 0:27:36 0:11:40
2 100 1235 102336 0:36:29 0:15:03
3 100 1227 101010 52:24.0 0:16:32
4 100 1212 101876 1:05:58 0:23:37
5 100 1250 102840 1:20:14 0:23:51
I also should note that in every sample except for the first one, HEM had less error hands than PT3. The error counts were 20,3,1,2,1 for HEM and 18,7,5,7,8 for PT3.
Lastly, After the second sample, I did the recommended db maintenance (vacuum & analyze HEM with PGadmin, and cluster, vacuum, analyze & cache PT3 in it's DB Housekeeping). It took 0:08:40 for HEM, and 0:10:14 for PT3 (0:03:19 for the vacuum & analyze).
I will do a few more samples for anyone that cares, but so far anyway, PT3 took less than 1/2 the time to import per sample, and HEM seems to be slowing down more as the db gets larger. Anyone who has any ideas how to speed up either, I'd love to hear ideas.
Thanks,
SwizzleStack
(I'll be posting this on both the PT3 & HEM forum, as well as possibly http://www.pokersoftware.com)