On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 11:00:23 UTC, Chris wrote:
I tested the performance of three types of loops (see code below). It turns out that the fastest loop is the "plainLoop". Unless my examples are completely screwed up, the difference between "plainLoop" and the other two loops is gigantic (e.g.):9 ms, 149 μs, and 4 hnsecs // foreach (const ref w) 9 ms, 77 μs, and 8 hnsecs // foreach (ref w) 1 ms, 183 μs, and 6 hnsecs // foreach (w) with -release -inline -O -boundscheck=off 8 ms, 492 μs, and 3 hnsecs 8 ms, 287 μs, and 1 hnsec 341 μs and 2 hnsecs [compiler dmd v2.067.0, Linux Ubuntu, 64bit] import std.datetime : benchmark, Duration; import std.string : format; import std.conv : to; import std.stdio : writeln; enum { string[] words = ["Hello", "world", "Ola", "mundo"], } void main() {auto result = benchmark!(constLoop, refLoop, plainLoop)(100_000);writeln(to!Duration(result[0])); writeln(to!Duration(result[1])); writeln(to!Duration(result[2])); } void constLoop() { size_t cnt; foreach (const ref w; words) cnt += w.length; } void refLoop() { size_t cnt; foreach (ref w; words) cnt += w.length; } void plainLoop() { size_t cnt; foreach (w; words) cnt += w.length; }
You should temper the results because these kinds of tests are known not to represent well the reality. In a real program, the loops performances are affected by the instruction cache, the memory cache, the complexity of the operations inside the loop (nested TEST/CMP). Actually this kind of test represents an ideal, unreallisctic situation, that will never happend in a "IRL" program.
