On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 05:36, Michael Van Canneyt
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:45, Michael Van Canneyt
<[email protected]> wrote:
Try and improve that class with ansistrings. If you succeed, only then we
can start making a case for using them in the compiler.
Ok, I went ahead and have taken look at the code.
I assume you speak about TFPHashList vs TFPCustomHashTable.
The classes are not really comparable, because they use quite
different internal data structures.
But they perform the same function; hash on string with an
associated data structure.
Sure, but in a very different manner.
Look at the code yourself if you do not believe me ;-)
I know it quite well.
But both classes serve approximately the same functional purpose: a hash.
Benchmarking included 3*10^6 calls to Add and Find methods
with the arguments of various lengths.
Average string length 5 characters:
ShortString: 1.15 s
AnsiString: 1.56 s
Average string length 45 characters:
ShortString: 12.0 s
AnsiString: 3.2 s
I agree that the first case is more relevant for the compiler,
but still you can see that ShortStrings are clearly not always faster.
I'm always open for benchmark tests.
Can you please send me your test and the implementation ?
I'd like to see when the balance shifts.
Sure, see attachment.
Note that I made shortstring->ansistring text replacament
followed by minimal fixed to get working Add and Find methods.
Other methods may be broken as a result.
At the moment, it's just for benchmarking.
Thank you for the code.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
