Re: Weird performance issue
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:44 PM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Letting the engine do it for you is always faster. > Interestingly, *just* getting the names and ids for a 1500 card stack is only about 15 times faster using the functions rather than a loop that gets each individually. For my purposes I have to parse the results anyway, which reduces the ratio to about 6 times faster. Enough that I'll definitely rewrite the code, but less than I would have expected. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
Yep, I'm aware of cardnames. I don't have any memory of why I wrote it this way -- maybe I didn't trust the ordering of cardnames and cardids? Or maybe it made more sense to collect by hand than to stitch together the values? Or maybe I just sucked at that moment in time. gc On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:44 PM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Are you familiar with the cardnames function? Letting the engine do it for > you is always faster. That doesn't answer your question though. > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > On September 23, 2022 5:46:24 PM Geoff Canyon via use-livecode > wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:08 AM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > >> On 9/23/22 10:40, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: > >> > It may be related to the size of the stack. LC would have to load it > all > >> > into memory before checking the cards. Also, do the results change if > >> > you lock messages? > >> > >> You also do a *lot* of work on both opening the stack and opening the > >> card. And looping through that many times in your test. Your loop test > >> doesn't really simulate real-world conditions for Navigator, so I don't > >> think I'd worry about it too much. > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Wieder > >> ahsoftw...@gmail.com > > > > > > Why would the stack be opened, or the card, just checking existence? And > > why would that happen each time rather than once? > > > > FYI for all tests the stacks are already open. > > > > And: Navigator until the version I'm working on now did exactly this when > > getting a list of the card names I have no idea why I coded it that way, > > but checking that method vs. getting the number of cards and then getting > > the names based on that was what let me to notice this. > > > > thanks! > > > > gc > > ___ > > use-livecode mailing list > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
Are you familiar with the cardnames function? Letting the engine do it for you is always faster. That doesn't answer your question though. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On September 23, 2022 5:46:24 PM Geoff Canyon via use-livecode wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:08 AM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: On 9/23/22 10:40, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: > It may be related to the size of the stack. LC would have to load it all > into memory before checking the cards. Also, do the results change if > you lock messages? You also do a *lot* of work on both opening the stack and opening the card. And looping through that many times in your test. Your loop test doesn't really simulate real-world conditions for Navigator, so I don't think I'd worry about it too much. -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com Why would the stack be opened, or the card, just checking existence? And why would that happen each time rather than once? FYI for all tests the stacks are already open. And: Navigator until the version I'm working on now did exactly this when getting a list of the card names I have no idea why I coded it that way, but checking that method vs. getting the number of cards and then getting the names based on that was what let me to notice this. thanks! gc ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:08 AM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 9/23/22 10:40, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: > > It may be related to the size of the stack. LC would have to load it all > > into memory before checking the cards. Also, do the results change if > > you lock messages? > > You also do a *lot* of work on both opening the stack and opening the > card. And looping through that many times in your test. Your loop test > doesn't really simulate real-world conditions for Navigator, so I don't > think I'd worry about it too much. > > -- > Mark Wieder > ahsoftw...@gmail.com Why would the stack be opened, or the card, just checking existence? And why would that happen each time rather than once? FYI for all tests the stacks are already open. And: Navigator until the version I'm working on now did exactly this when getting a list of the card names I have no idea why I coded it that way, but checking that method vs. getting the number of cards and then getting the names based on that was what let me to notice this. thanks! gc ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
My test stack had over a thousand cards in it, and was still fast checking the 1000th card. I've now added a field to each of a thousand cards and stuck text in it; the stack is over 12MB and still much faster than Navigator, which is under 1MB. Lock Messages does nothing as far as I can tell. thanks! gc On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:41 AM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > It may be related to the size of the stack. LC would have to load it all > into memory before checking the cards. Also, do the results change if you > lock messages? > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > On September 22, 2022 3:01:48 PM Geoff Canyon via use-livecode > wrote: > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
On 9/23/22 10:40, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: It may be related to the size of the stack. LC would have to load it all into memory before checking the cards. Also, do the results change if you lock messages? You also do a *lot* of work on both opening the stack and opening the card. And looping through that many times in your test. Your loop test doesn't really simulate real-world conditions for Navigator, so I don't think I'd worry about it too much. -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
It may be related to the size of the stack. LC would have to load it all into memory before checking the cards. Also, do the results change if you lock messages? -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On September 22, 2022 3:01:48 PM Geoff Canyon via use-livecode wrote: I was testing something for Navigator and found the following: put the long seconds into T repeat 1 get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" --get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" end repeat put the long seconds - T into T put T -- puts 0.005 or so put the long seconds into T repeat 1 --get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" end repeat put the long seconds - T into T put T -- puts 1.2 Why in the world would it take over 200x as long to identify that there is a card 1 of Navigator vs. a random stack I just created? I just checked and: stack "message" -- over 3 seconds -- a second run was 0.4 stack "revdictionary" -- 1.5 seconds stack "home" -- 0.02 seconds I ran it across everything in the environment and got results from under a hundredth of a second to over a second, with stacks pretty smoothly across that range. No clue what's causing it. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
Hmm, this is what "the stacks" returns for me: /Users/gcanyon/Desktop/nav tester 0.004608 /Applications/LiveCode 9.6.8.app/Contents/Tools/Toolset/palettes/script-editor/revscripteditor.rev 0.272558 /Applications/LiveCode 9.6.8.app/Contents/Tools/Toolset/palettes/tools-palette/revtools.livecodescript 0.440798 /Applications/LiveCode 9.6.8.app/Contents/Tools/Toolset/palettes/dictionary/revdictionary.livecode 1.72743 /Applications/LiveCode 9.6.8.app/Contents/Tools/Toolset/palettes/menubar/revmenubar.livecodescript 0.421698 /Users/gcanyon/Desktop/nav tester 0.00453 0.007308 /Applications/LiveCode 9.6.8.app/Contents/Tools/Toolset/palettes/inspector/revinspector.livecodescript 1.565991 /Users/gcanyon/Documents/My LiveCode/Plugins/Navigator.rev 1.348666 Note the super long times for the dictionary, the inspector, and navigator, the mediocre times for others, and the super fast time for the stack actually running the code. I'm on an M1 mac running 9.6.8 On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:48 AM Craig Newman via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Something weird happened to my post. > > I modified your handler to access only those stacks that appear when > calling the function “the stacks”. In all those cases, the return time was > only a few tenths of a second. > > But “revNaviigator” does not appear on that list. So there must be a > longer pathway for LC to find a stack that certainly must be in memory, but > that does not appear in the “stacks” list? > > Craig > > > On Sep 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > I was testing something for Navigator and found the following: > > > > put the long seconds into T > > repeat 1 > > get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" > > --get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" > > end repeat > > put the long seconds - T into T > > put T > > -- puts 0.005 or so > > > > put the long seconds into T > > repeat 1 > > --get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" > > get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" > > end repeat > > put the long seconds - T into T > > put T > > -- puts 1.2 > > > > Why in the world would it take over 200x as long to identify that there > is > > a card 1 of Navigator vs. a random stack I just created? > > > > I just checked and: > > stack "message" -- over 3 seconds -- a second run was 0.4 > > stack "revdictionary" -- 1.5 seconds > > stack "home" -- 0.02 seconds > > > > I ran it across everything in the environment and got results from under > a > > hundredth of a second to over a second, with stacks pretty smoothly > across > > that range. No clue what's causing it. > > ___ > > use-livecode mailing list > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
Something weird happened to my post. I modified your handler to access only those stacks that appear when calling the function “the stacks”. In all those cases, the return time was only a few tenths of a second. But “revNaviigator” does not appear on that list. So there must be a longer pathway for LC to find a stack that certainly must be in memory, but that does not appear in the “stacks” list? Craig > On Sep 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode > wrote: > > I was testing something for Navigator and found the following: > > put the long seconds into T > repeat 1 > get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" > --get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" > end repeat > put the long seconds - T into T > put T > -- puts 0.005 or so > > put the long seconds into T > repeat 1 > --get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" > get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" > end repeat > put the long seconds - T into T > put T > -- puts 1.2 > > Why in the world would it take over 200x as long to identify that there is > a card 1 of Navigator vs. a random stack I just created? > > I just checked and: > stack "message" -- over 3 seconds -- a second run was 0.4 > stack "revdictionary" -- 1.5 seconds > stack "home" -- 0.02 seconds > > I ran it across everything in the environment and got results from under a > hundredth of a second to over a second, with stacks pretty smoothly across > that range. No clue what's causing it. > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Weird performance issue
Geoff. I get over 5 seconds for the “revNavigatior” So I modified your handler just a bit, to only a But “revNaviigator” does not appear on that list. So there must be a longer pathway for LC to find a stack that certainly must be in memory, but that does not appear in the “stacks” list? Craig > On Sep 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode > wrote: > > put the long seconds into T > repeat 1 > get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" > --get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" > end repeat > put the long seconds - T into T > put T > -- puts 0.005 or so > > put the long seconds into T > repeat 1 > --get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" > get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" > end repeat > put the long seconds - T into T > put T > -- puts 1.2 ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Weird performance issue
I was testing something for Navigator and found the following: put the long seconds into T repeat 1 get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" --get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" end repeat put the long seconds - T into T put T -- puts 0.005 or so put the long seconds into T repeat 1 --get there is a card 1 of stack "untitled 1" get there is a card 1 of stack "revnavigator" end repeat put the long seconds - T into T put T -- puts 1.2 Why in the world would it take over 200x as long to identify that there is a card 1 of Navigator vs. a random stack I just created? I just checked and: stack "message" -- over 3 seconds -- a second run was 0.4 stack "revdictionary" -- 1.5 seconds stack "home" -- 0.02 seconds I ran it across everything in the environment and got results from under a hundredth of a second to over a second, with stacks pretty smoothly across that range. No clue what's causing it. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
