Score another one for random testing! :)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi
> wrote:
>>
>> How does compare to builtin mutable hashes?
>
>
>
> The following code represents a rough hashtable equivalent of what my rb
> code
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> How does compare to builtin mutable hashes?
>
The following code represents a rough hashtable equivalent of what my rb
code would be enabling (quick search for word by position):
;; We might be curious as to the overhead of the
Yes, a program that is all structure creation, access, and mutation
should run around twice as fast compared to v5.3.1.
At Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:07:12 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> I don't know if this is the reason, but I do know that Matthew made
> the jit able to see thru some structure operation
How does compare to builtin mutable hashes?
2012/11/18, Danny Yoo :
> I'm doing some micro-optimizations on my rb-tree implementation. One thing
> I'm testing is inserting the entire contents of /usr/share/dict/words.
> It's heavily dominated by structure-mutation code.
>
> Under 5.3.1, I see t
I don't know if this is the reason, but I do know that Matthew made
the jit able to see thru some structure operations. Perhaps that
enables some other optimizations now that weren't in 5.3.1.
Robby
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I'm doing some micro-optimizations on my rb-t
I'm doing some micro-optimizations on my rb-tree implementation. One thing
I'm testing is inserting the entire contents of /usr/share/dict/words.
It's heavily dominated by structure-mutation code.
Under 5.3.1, I see the following times:
Timing construction of /usr/share/dict/words:
inse
6 matches
Mail list logo