jtamate marked 9 inline comments as done.
jtamate added a comment.
> If anyone attempts this, please name the struct and its members, don't use
QPair ;-)
> But no, that cannot possibly be faster. QVariant has lots of overhead
itself.
I've tried, just before reading your comment :-)
Three tests: fill the structure, compare two structures and read 3 values.
AnotherV2 (If someone finds a better name, it will be welcome).
0.00041 msecs per iteration (total: 55, iterations: 131072)
0.00022 msecs per iteration (total: 59, iterations: 262144)
0.00048 msecs per iteration (total: 64, iterations: 131072)
QPair+QVariant:
0.00056 msecs per iteration (total: 74, iterations: 131072)
0.00020 msecs per iteration (total: 55, iterations: 262144)
0.00049 msecs per iteration (total: 65, iterations: 131072)
INLINE COMMENTS
> dfaure wrote in udsentry_benchmark.cpp:619
> This relies on insert being called in ascending "field" order, for
> lower_bound to work.
> But that is not necessarily the case in kioslaves, so you'd have to insert at
> "index" here, instead of appending.
Yes, it was badly done. Changed the fill order to detect this problems.
REPOSITORY
R241 KIO
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D12659
To: jtamate, dfaure, #frameworks
Cc: bruns, michaelh
