Hi Tobias, here's the data with and without the strings comparisons
WITHOUT:
libclang code completion
========================
File: /Users/francisco/Desktop/sample/simple_bimap.cpp
Line: 56, Column: 10
std::
libclang code completion - Get TU: 0.001s ( 0.1% )
libclang code completion - Code Complete: 0.252s ( 39.2% )
libclang code completion - Count # Results (1740): 0.002s ( 0.2% )
libclang code completion - Filter: 0.000s ( 0.0% )
libclang code completion - Sort: 0.007s ( 1.1% )
libclang code completion - Format: 0.293s ( 45.7% )
libclang code completion - Load into vimscript: 0.023s ( 3.6% )
libclang code completion - vimscript + snippets: 0.065s ( 10.1% )
Overall: 0.642 s
========================
clang_complete: completion time (library) 0.642779
WITH:
libclang code completion
========================
File: /Users/francisco/Desktop/sample/simple_bimap.cpp
Line: 55, Column: 10
std::
libclang code completion - Get TU: 0.001s ( 0.2%)
libclang code completion - Code Complete: 0.235s ( 49.2%)
libclang code completion - Count # Results (1740): 0.001s ( 0.2%)
libclang code completion - Filter: 0.000s ( 0.0%)
libclang code completion - Sort: 0.007s ( 1.5%)
libclang code completion - Format: 0.145s ( 30.3%)
libclang code completion - Load into vimscript: 0.023s ( 4.9%)
libclang code completion - vimscript + snippets: 0.066s ( 13.8%)
Overall: 0.478 s
========================
clang_complete: completion time (library) 0.479182
The rate between the two is .293/.145 = 2.02. So the truth is that nearly all
the benefits got in the Format
phase came by avoiding string comparisons, the caching does nearly nothing in
this case because, in
clang_complete, hardly there's double calls for the methods that are caching
results.
Regards,
Francisco.
Em 18/08/2012, às 21:12, Tobias Grosser <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On 08/18/2012 11:56 PM, Francisco Lopes da Silva wrote:
>> Hi, this patch contains optimizations for the python cindex binding,
>> specifically for the CompletionChunk class. It tries to avoid calls to
>> the c interface by caching the results, also, it improves internal
>> checking by avoiding string comparisons and dictionary lookups.
>
> Hi Francisco,
>
> it is very impressive to see how much the caching of properties actual
> benefits clang_complete. Such a speedup is a very good reason to enable
> caching of properties.
> The way the caching is implemented is correct, however I expect that we want
> to do more and more caching in the future. Hence, limiting the code bloat for
> caching seems to be important. I remember Gregory Szorc had a patch available
> that introduced a @CachedProperty that allows us to cache properties by just
> adding an attribute:
> https://github.com/indygreg/clang/commit/a4b533cea8cfce5d211d8e0477dd12fd66b35f5d
>
> What about using this opportunity to add CachedProperty to the current
> cindex.py and to use it to implement the caching that you propose for the
> CompletionChunks.
>
> Also, I did some experiments myself and I had the feeling a large part of the
> speedup you show came from caching, whereas avoiding string comparisons and
> dictionary lookups did not make such a big difference. Hence, I propose to
> first add the caching to cindex.py and then reevaluate the other changes on
> their own to see if the performance change they cause is worth the added
> complexity.
>
> Cheers
> Tobi
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
