Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm somewhat confused. Is 150ms considered low? That's less than 7fps.

336524=26280. Emitting 26k points is like child's play for any program, are we really so far down in bloat that this is considered impressive? Because this is not impressive. A 16MHz AVR could execute 91 instructions per sample in those 150ms, more than enough for plotting that data.

A 3GHz machine could execute 17123 instructions per sample, and it would probably need less instructions than the AVR would.




FWIW, the majority of this 150ms is bootup time and includes initializing the DOM & canvas, JITing the js, downloading & parsing the dataset, and actually running the code, which includes data downsampling & gap detection/clipping.

try to get this perf on the web, and then you can re-asses your statement. if it was easy, then every other js charting lib would not be struggling to do it, right?

for native code (or webgl), obviously this is child's play. but webgl has significant trade-offs. e.g: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=771792

finally, you cannot extrapolate from the 26k/150ms number. uPlot can draw 4.8M points in ~2000ms on an i5 with integrated gpu (after bootup amortization).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: