• vvvvv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      106 Gbps

      They get to this result on 0.6 MB of data (paper, page 5)

      They even say:

      Moreover, there is no need to evaluate our design with datasets larger than the ones we have used; we achieve steady state performance with our datasets

      This requires an explanation. I do see the need - if you promise 100Gbps you need to process at least a few Tbs.

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Imagine you have a car powered by a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last 100 years and a stable output of energy. Then you put it on a 5 mile road that is comprised of the same 250 small segments in various configurations, but you know for a fact that starts and ends at the same elevation. You also know that this car gains exactly as much performance going downhill as it loses going uphill.

        You set the car driving and determine that, it takes 15 minutes to travel 5 miles. You reconfigure the road, same rules, and do it again. Same result, 15 minutes. You do this again and again and again and always get 15 minutes.

        Do you need to test the car on a 20 mile road of the same configuration to know that it goes 20mph?

        JSON is a text-based, uncompressed format. It has very strict rules and a limited number of data types and structures. Further, it cannot contain computational logic on it’s own. The contents can interpreted after being read to extract logic, but the JSON itself cannot change it’s own computational complexity. As such, it’s simple to express every possible form and complexity a JSON object can take within just 0.6 MB of data. And once they know they can process that file in however-the-fuck-many microseconds, they can extrapolate to Gbps from there