Table 2 Comparison between PMS8 and recent results in the literature
From: Efficient sequential and parallel algorithms for planted motif search
Previous algorithm | Instance | Time | Cores | PMS8 time | PMS8 cores |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abbas et al. 2012 [12], PHEP_PMSprune | (21,8) | 20.42h | 8 | 6.5m | 1 |
Yu et al. 2012 [3], PairMotif | (27, 9) | 10h | 1 | 4s | 1 |
Desaraju and Mukkamala 2011 [7] | (24,6) | 347s | 1 | 1s | 1 |
(48,12) | 188s | 1 | 1s | 1 | |
Dasari et al. 2011 [13], mSPELLER / gSPELLER | (21,8) | 3.7h | 16 | 6.5m | 16 |
(21,8) | 2.2h | 4 GPUs x 240 cores | 6.5m | 16 | |
Dasari et al. 2010 [14], BitBased | (21,8) | 1.1h | 6.5m | 16 | |
Dasari and Desh 2010 [15], BitBased | (21,8) | 6.9h | 16 | 6.5m | 16 |
Sahoo et al. 2011 [16] | (16,4) | 106s | 4 | 1s | 1 |
Sun et al. 2011 [17], TreeMotif | (40,14) | 6h | 1 | 6s | 1 |
He et al. 2010 [18], ListMotif | (40,14) | 28,087s | 1 | 6s | 1 |
Faheem 2010 [19], skip-Brute Force | (15,4) | 2934s | 96 nodes | 1s | 1 |
Ho et al. 2009 [6], iTriplet | (24,8) | 4h | 1 | 5s | 1 |
(38,12) | 1h | 1 | 1s | 1 | |
(40,12) | 5m | 1 | 1s | 1 |