Hi all,
thank you for the information.
In fact, Alex you are right, I have a nextPutAll: that I should replace.
Cheers,
Jannik
On Apr 28, 2011, at 15:02 , Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> Hi Jannik,
>
>> ===
>> MessageTally spyOn:
>> [ 500 timesRepeat: [
>> | str |
>> str := WriteStream on: (String new).
>> 9000 timesRepeat: [ str nextPut: $A ]]].
>> ===
>>
>> The result appears after 812 ms, which is a large improvement.
>> Now, we could optimize again using the preallocation. Here is my source code:
>>
>> ====
>> MessageTally spyOn:
>> [ 500 timesRepeat: [
>> | str |
>> str := WriteStream on: (String new: 10000).
>> 9000 timesRepeat: [ str nextPutAll: 'A' ]]].
>> ====
>
> In the first case you use nextPut:, in the second case you use nextPutAll:.
> Replacing nextPutAll: by nextPut: gives me coherent result.
>
> 330 ms for the first, and 321 for the second (with the preallocation).
>
> Alexandre
>
>
>> And the result is strange: it makes 2 times slower to display the result.
>> The result appears after 1656 ms.
>>
>> Here is the spy result:
>> ===
>> - 1656 tallies, 1656 msec.
>>
>> **Tree**
>> --------------------------------
>> Process: (40s) 464519168: nil
>> --------------------------------
>> **Leaves**
>> 22.9% {380ms} UndefinedObject>>DoIt
>> 22.5% {373ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>timesRepeat:
>> 22.2% {368ms} WriteStream>>nextPutAll:
>> ===
>>
>> There is the call of UndefinedObject>>DoIt which is added and takes time.
>> Does anyone know what is done during the preallocation ?
>> Why is it slower than non-preallocation ?
>>
>> Thanks for your answers.
>> Jannik
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>
>
>
