Performance figures [Re: Idea for a possibly better Collection
occurrencesOf method]
Jon Hylands
jon at huv.com
Wed Sep 13 20:09:55 UTC 2006
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:35:01 +0200, "Klaus D. Witzel"
<klaus.witzel at cobss.com> wrote:
> > so you don't have to worry about trading off code
> > clarity and re-use for performance.
>
> I cannot say that I understand this sentence (read it time and again, but
> no clue). What's the connection.
After having done some simple benchmarks, there doesn't appear to be much
of a difference in the two techniques:
| time collection sum |
collection := (1 to: 100000) asOrderedCollection.
Smalltalk garbageCollect.
time := Time millisecondsToRun: [sum := collection sum].
sum.
time
versus:
| time collection sum |
collection := (1 to: 100000) asOrderedCollection.
Smalltalk garbageCollect.
time := Time millisecondsToRun: [
sum := 0.
1 to: collection size do: [:index |
sum := sum + (collection at: index)]].
sum.
time
They both give more or less identical time (about 280 ms on my machine).
It may be that this is a moot point in Squeak...
Later,
Jon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hylands Jon at huv.com http://www.huv.com/jon
Project: Micro Seeker (Micro Autonomous Underwater Vehicle)
http://www.huv.com
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|