Re: standard read_file()

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message 

c.k.lester wrote:
> Okay, they're equal now. Except your read_file() is twice as fast! Nice! :)

I want to defend my read_file :P

I tried to test that too, with this result for 7 MB file, 5 iteration:

0.672 -- my read_file
0.407 -- j_cougar's read_file
0.265 -- my read_file
0.391 -- j_cougar's read_file
0.266 -- my read_file
0.39 -- j_cougar's read_file
0.266 -- my read_file
0.39 -- j_cougar's read_file
0.266 -- my read_file
0.422 -- j_cougar's read_file

Maybe what happened to you was that you only tried for one iteration.
It is slower because the file is not cached by windows or whatever OS you
are using.

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Search



Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu