You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The benchmarking vignette documents the differences in terms of timings and RAM usage, but there is actually much more. While we want to make sure the the two back-end keep the same API (or at least as much as possible), there are fundamental differences, including
MS levels
on-disk support multiple MS levels in one object, while in-memory only supports a single level. While support for multiple MS levels could be added to the in-memory back-end, memory constrains make this pretty-much useless and will most likely never happen.
Serialisation
in-memory objects can be save()ed and load()ed, while on-disk can't. As a workaround, the latter can be coerced to in-memory though. We would need mzML write support in mzR to be able to implement serialisation for on-disk data.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The benchmarking vignette documents the differences in terms of timings and RAM usage, but there is actually much more. While we want to make sure the the two back-end keep the same API (or at least as much as possible), there are fundamental differences, including
MS levels
on-disk support multiple MS levels in one object, while in-memory only supports a single level. While support for multiple MS levels could be added to the in-memory back-end, memory constrains make this pretty-much useless and will most likely never happen.
Serialisation
in-memory objects can be
save()
ed andload()
ed, while on-disk can't. As a workaround, the latter can be coerced to in-memory though. We would needmzML
write support inmzR
to be able to implement serialisation foron-disk
data.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: