On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 07:19:39AM +0000, Renato via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 22:13:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > used for the recursive calls. Getting rid of the .format ought to > > speed it up a bit. Will try that now... > > > > That will make no difference for the `count` option which is where > your solution was very slow.
Of course it will. Passing the data directly to the callback that bumps a counter is faster than allocating a new string, formatting the data, and then passing it to the callback that bumps a counter. It may not look like much, but avoiding unnecessary GC allocations means the GC will have less work to do later when a collection is run, thus you save time over the long term. > To run the slow test manually use the `words_quarter.txt` dictionary > (the phone numbers file doesn't matter much - it's all in the > dictionary). > > But pls run the benchmarks yourself as I am not going to keep running > it for you, and would be nice if you posted your solution on a Gist > for example, pasting lots of code in the forum makes it difficult to > follow. I'll push the code to github. T -- "No, John. I want formats that are actually useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that address all questions by piling on ridiculous internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex." -- Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
