Interpreting these Results

In all of the following tables, the best performing result in each row, is assigned a relative value of "1" and shown in bold, so a score of "2" means "twice as slow as the best performing result". Actual timings in seconds per function call are also shown in parenthesis.

Result were obtained on a system with an Intel 2.8GHz Pentium 4 processor with 2Gb of RAM and running either Windows XP or Mandriva Linux.

	Caution
As usual with performance results these should be taken with a large pinch of salt: relative performance is known to shift quite a bit depending upon the architecture of the particular test system used. Further more, our performance results were obtained using our own test data: these test values are designed to provide good coverage of our code and test all the appropriate corner cases. They do not necessarily represent "typical" usage: whatever that may be!

Caution

As usual with performance results these should be taken with a large pinch of salt: relative performance is known to shift quite a bit depending upon the architecture of the particular test system used. Further more, our performance results were obtained using our own test data: these test values are designed to provide good coverage of our code and test all the appropriate corner cases. They do not necessarily represent "typical" usage: whatever that may be!

	Note
	Since these tests were run, most compilers have improved their code optimisation, and processor speeds have improved too, so these results are known to be out of date.