Tool
|
Param.
|
Wall clock
|
RAM
(MB)
|
TP
|
FP
|
FN
|
SEN (%)
|
PREC (%)
|
Non-isol.
SNP
|
---|
Individual HG00096 vs reference (chromosome 22, 50818468bp), coverage 29× per sample
|
DiscoSnp++
|
b = 0
|
5:07
|
101
|
32,773
|
3719
|
13,274
|
71.17
|
89.81
|
4707/8658
|
b = 1
|
16:39
|
124
|
37,155
|
10,599
|
8892
|
80.69
|
77.80
|
5770/8658
|
b = 2
|
20:42
|
551
|
40,177
|
58,227
|
5870
|
87.25
|
40.83
|
6325/8658
|
ebwt2snp
|
\(\hbox {cov}=4\)
|
35:56
|
314
|
42,309
|
1487
|
3738
|
91.88
|
96.60
|
7233/8658
|
\(\hbox {cov}=6\)
|
22:19
|
300
|
40,741
|
357
|
5306
|
88.47
|
99.13
|
6884/8658
|
Individual HG00100 vs reference (chromosome 16, 90338345bp), coverage 22× per sample
|
DiscoSnp++
|
b=0
|
6:20
|
200
|
48,119
|
10,226
|
18,001
|
72.78
|
82.47
|
6625/11,055
|
b=1
|
31:57
|
208
|
53,456
|
24,696
|
12,664
|
80.85
|
68.40
|
7637/11,055
|
b=2
|
51:45
|
1256
|
57,767
|
124,429
|
8353
|
87.37
|
31.71
|
8307/11,055
|
ebwt2snp
|
\(\hbox {cov}=4\)
|
33:24
|
418
|
59,668
|
898
|
6452
|
90.24
|
98.51
|
9287/11,055
|
\(\hbox {cov}=6\)
|
44:53
|
337
|
53,749
|
190
|
12,371
|
81.29
|
99.64
|
8169/11,055
|
- Wall clock (mm:ss) is the elapsed time from start to completion of the instance, while RAM is the peak Resident Set Size (RSS). Both values were taken with /usr/bin/time command. We recall that DiscoSnp++ makes use of multiple cores while ebwt2snp is currently designed to use one core only, thus explaining the difference in speed