Pandora wrote:
 >     Why the need to keep it memory - are their really any modern computer
 > systems that don't allow complete random read-write access to files ?
 >     Think about Windows virtual memory files and you'll see there's 
no need
 > to actually keep the whole image in physical memory...

True, but then wouldn't you take a performance hit all over again?
Consider the classic question "Should I invest in a better CPU or
more memory to improve my raytracing speed?" (to which the
classic answer, of course is simply "Yes")

On large data sets, of course you get more bang for your buck
from memory because of the performance hit that falling back on
virtual memory gives you. Similarly, if you had to read the old
data from file might it simply cause enough performance loss to
render the new feature's efficiency moot?


-- 
@C[$F];
The Silver Tome ::  http://www.silvertome.com
"You may sing to my cat if you like..."

Post a reply to this message