On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Erik Hofman wrote: > After thinking about it I think that in the second case the property > tree is being walked trough by the C++ code while in the first case it's > done in Nasal. You just discovered that Nasal is 10x slower than C++ code! > This is exactly why I prefer core code to end up in C++ in the end. > > That said, Nasal performance tests are always useful.
Hi, I think a bigger issue might be that both getChild() and getNode() create and return a hash object that is only used once here before becoming garbage. Since this was loop with many iterations a good deal of garbage was created so possibly a significant amount of the time was spent in the garbage collector. OTOH the string handling also ought to generate garbage but the short strings are probably smaller than the hash objects. My 1 minute of thought to the morning coffee.. Cheers, Anders -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
