Re: append() versus &=
Hello Rob, Jiri
I did try switching the parts arround and it did make a difference.
But either way, append() was still slower on the "complex" append.
>I think your benchmark is completely dominated by the troublesome rand()
>function. Take it out of the loop and you will see Rob indeed optimised the
>common case:
> s1 = append(s1, s2)
I used rand() to add some variation in the data because
otherwise cacheing occurs which speeds up things in a
seemingly unpredictable way. I can't think of any useful
program (off the top of my head) that would simply append
thousands of identical items to each other. Besides, I
don't see how rand() was messing up the numbers since I
always did the same thing in both loops. Perhaps an
assignment and THEN the append would work better.
I am currently
working on 2 projects: LOOP (an OOP lib) and a real-time
game. Both will need all the speed they can get and both
will be operating on complex sequences with plenty of
randomness. I felt that my benchmarks adequately tested
for speed in this situation but perhaps not. I have tried testing
LOOP lib itself with either all append()s or all &=s. Sometimes
one seems faster and sometimes the other. I want to use the one
that's faster MOST of the time but I think your (jiri's) program
allows data caching to invalidate the benchmarks. I'm not sure
WHAT was going on with mine that always gave the second loop an
advantage but I'd like to know how to accurately test for the
speed of random complex data appending. Jiri, I'm sure you can
come up with something. I wouldn't just wait for you to do
all the work but I wont' be able to do any coding until after
this weekend as I'll be away from my comp for 4 days.
later,
Lewis Townsend
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
