RE: Speed of global function
- Posted by jxliv7 at hotmail.com
Aug 17, 2003
> Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>>jxliv7 wrote:
>>Rob, appreciate the response.
>>but it still doesn't explain how i can just change the names on your
>>global routine and get completely slower consistent times.
>
> One thing that might possibly be happening (and trust me, I'm by no
> means any kind of expert on this point) is that if you do:
>
> thousands of runs of a
> then
> thousands of runs of b
>
> then part way though b, the garbage collector might decide it is time
> to do a little housekeeping that wasn't necessary during the run of a.
> The reverse (ooh, bad pun) could also be true, that a incurs some cost
> allocating quite a bit of memory, and b just reuses it.
you're absolutely right, Pete, i had not even considered
swapping the order of running the sections of the program...
although, i just swapped places and got the same crazy results as
before -- strange...
> You might get a fairer comparison if you time each case in its own
> program, maybe not...
again, quite true, i should try that as well. good idea...
> Although I accept you are probably just experimenting for a bit of
> fun, it is worth saying that shaving 20% off a routine which is
> already quite fast will have almost no effect whatsoever on the
> performance of a larger program.
>
actually, it might. the routine i was trying to compact would
run every now and then in the application, reversing a sequence
with as many as 99,999,999 million elements. why the difference between
38 seconds and 22 seconds makes me wonder.
anyway, enough of that. i'm moving on...
--
jon
jxliv7 at hotmail.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
