> On 16.01.2015, at 16:36, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marcel,
> 
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
> 
>> Ah, okay. I was curious about the performance of iterating over an array vs.
>> the linked list:
>> 
>> a := Array new: 1000.
>> l := LinkedList new.
>> 
>> 1000 timesRepeat: [l add: (StackLink with: nil)].
>> 
>> [a do: [:ea | 1 + 2]] bench. "'94,600 per second.'"
>> 
>> [l do: [:ea | 1 + 2]] bench. "'159,000 per second.'"
>> 
>> I expected the opposite! :-O Why is that so?
> 
> Look at the implementations of do:.
> 
> In the Array case we iterate over the indices using SmallIntegers (fast arithmetic with no allocation) and dereference each element using the Object>>at: primitive, which (apart from type and bounds checking) is simple indexed memory access. So one read per element.
> 
> In the LinkedList case each list element is fetched from the previous element and each value fetched from the element, so two reads per element.

Making it all the more surprising that the linked list is twice as fast.

My guess would be that the two inst var reads are way more efficient than the at: primitive.

- Bert -


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4115 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20150116/03ff2ec6/smime.bin