wrap up timings in performance notebook

Author: philipc2

notebooks/03-uxarray-vis/06-performance.ipynb

@@ -80,20 +80,11 @@
   {
    "cell_type": "markdown",
    "source": [
-    "### Data Processing (Subsequent Runs)"
-   ],
-   "metadata": {
-    "collapsed": false
-   }
-  },
-  {
-   "cell_type": "markdown",
-   "source": [
-    "| Visualization Method / Grid Resolution  | 30km        | 15km        | 7.5km       | 3.75km       |\n",
-    "|-----------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|\n",
-    "| Polygon Raster (Including Antimeridian) | 0           | 0           | 0           | 0            |\n",
-    "| Polygon Raster (Excluding Antimeridian) | 0.30 (0.00) | 1.02 (0.36) | 3.46 (0.01) | 13.60 (0.08) |\n",
-    "| Point Raster                            | 0.13 (0.03) | 0.16 (0.01) | 0.35 (0.00) | 1.08 (0.07)  |"
+    "We can see that Point Rasters are the best in terms of performance, about 86 times faster than Polygon Rasters (excluding AM). \n",
+    "\n",
+    "Both polygon plots scale linearly with an increase in resolution. A doubling in resolution leads to about a 4x increase in the number of polygons (a.k.a polygons), which is observed in the timings.\n",
+    "\n",
+    "Including antimeridian polygons leads to about a 20x slowdown across all resolutions, so it's suggested to keep `exclude_antimeridian=True` when working with larger datasets."
    ],
    "metadata": {
     "collapsed": false
@@ -102,7 +93,7 @@
   {
    "cell_type": "markdown",
    "source": [
-    "### Visualization "
+    "### Data Processing (Subsequent Runs)"
    ],
    "metadata": {
     "collapsed": false
@@ -111,14 +102,15 @@
   {
    "cell_type": "markdown",
    "source": [
-    "| Visualization Method / Grid Resolution | 30km | 15km | 7.5km | 3.75km |\n",
-    "|----------------------------------------|------|------|-------|--------|\n",
-    "| Polygon Raster (0.5 Pixel Ratio)       | 0    | 0    | 0     | 0      |\n",
-    "| Polygon Raster (1.0 Pixel Ratio)       | 0    | 0    | 0     | 0      |\n",
-    "| Polygon Raster (4.0 Pixel Ratio)       | 0    | 0    | 0     | 0      |\n",
-    "| Point Raster (0.5 Pixel Ratio)         | 0    | 0    | 0     | 0      |\n",
-    "| Point Raster (1.0 Pixel Ratio)         | 0    | 0    | 0     | 0      |\n",
-    "| Point Raster (4.0 Pixel Ratio)         | 0    | 0    | 0     | 0      |"
+    "| Visualization Method / Grid Resolution  | 30km        | 15km        | 7.5km       | 3.75km       |\n",
+    "|-----------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|\n",
+    "| Polygon Raster (Including Antimeridian) | 0.31 (0.00) | 1.32 (0.31) | 3.85 (0.06) | 14.36 (0.13) |\n",
+    "| Polygon Raster (Excluding Antimeridian) | 0.30 (0.00) | 1.02 (0.36) | 3.46 (0.01) | 13.60 (0.08) |\n",
+    "| Point Raster                            | 0.13 (0.03) | 0.16 (0.01) | 0.35 (0.00) | 1.08 (0.07)  |\n",
+    "\n",
+    "For subsequent runs (i.e. we have already run one plotting instance, which computes and caches the necessary data structures), performance for both Polygon methods is essentially identical.\n",
+    "\n",
+    "There is no caching currently implemented for Point Rasters, so the performance for each run is consistent with the initial run.\n"
    ],
    "metadata": {
     "collapsed": false