Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Damian Sheehy" <Damian.Sheehy@mathworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Delaunay
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:45:48 -0400
Organization: The MathWorks, Inc.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <guhhru$g3j$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <guh53h$22b$1@fred.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: "Damian Sheehy" <Damian.Sheehy@mathworks.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sheehyd.dhcp.mathworks.com
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1242319550 16499 144.212.105.140 (14 May 2009 16:45:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:539992


Hi Luigi,

For randomly distributed datapoints the new triangulation functions are 3-4 
times faster.
For highly-degenerate datasets, such as datapoints arranged in a regular 
grid, the performance is worse, but the code is robust in tringulating this 
data.
We are aware of this issue and we actively working on addressing it.
Thank you for your feedback.

Regards,

Damian

"Luigi Giaccari" <giaccariluigi@msn.com> wrote in message 
news:guh53h$22b$1@fred.mathworks.com...
> Hi I was testing the new delaunay triangulator from the CGAL library 
> available from R2009a.
>
> These are my results:
> The new one is faster than delaunayn of 3-4 factors on uniform dataset.
> Instead, for sparse dataset is terribly slower, for a medium number of 
> points I had to stop the test before it finished.
>
> Test were run on 2-D 3-D models with increasing number of points up to 
> 1e5.
>
> Have you some explanation on that? and what is your opinon?
>
> Thanks in advance