← Back to context Comment by jazzyjackson 1 day ago OP said 2 seconds as if that wasn't an eternity... 2 comments jazzyjackson Reply gbnwl 1 day ago But then they said 250/second when running multiple inference? Again I don't know if their assertions about running multiple inference are correct but why focus on the wrong number instead of addressing the actual claim? Vampiero 7 hours ago 250/s is still nothing when compared to an actual NLP pipeline that takes a few ms per it, because you can parallelize that too.I know it's hard to understand, but you can achieve a throughput that is a few orders of magnitude higher.
gbnwl 1 day ago But then they said 250/second when running multiple inference? Again I don't know if their assertions about running multiple inference are correct but why focus on the wrong number instead of addressing the actual claim? Vampiero 7 hours ago 250/s is still nothing when compared to an actual NLP pipeline that takes a few ms per it, because you can parallelize that too.I know it's hard to understand, but you can achieve a throughput that is a few orders of magnitude higher.
Vampiero 7 hours ago 250/s is still nothing when compared to an actual NLP pipeline that takes a few ms per it, because you can parallelize that too.I know it's hard to understand, but you can achieve a throughput that is a few orders of magnitude higher.
But then they said 250/second when running multiple inference? Again I don't know if their assertions about running multiple inference are correct but why focus on the wrong number instead of addressing the actual claim?
250/s is still nothing when compared to an actual NLP pipeline that takes a few ms per it, because you can parallelize that too.
I know it's hard to understand, but you can achieve a throughput that is a few orders of magnitude higher.