On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 23:49:19 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
Other optimizations could be to make it multiple levels,
taking the basic 100 elements and expanding them 2-3 levels
deep in a lookup and having it do it in more or less a single
operation. (100 bytes for 1 level, 10,000 for 2 levels,
1,000,000 for 3 levels, 100,000,000 for 4 levels, etc), but the
steps of converting it to the array lookup won't give you that
much gain, although fewer memory lookups but none of them will
be cached, so any advantage from that is probably lost.
Although if you bump up the size to 16x10 instead of 10x10, you
could use a shift instead of *10 which will make that slightly
faster (there will be unused empty padded spots)
In theory if you avoid the memory lookup at all, you could
gain some amount of speed, depending on how it searches a
manual table, although using a switch-case and a mixin to do
all the details it feels like it wouldn't give you any gain...
Thank you for the detailed reply. I wasn't able to follow you
regarding the multilevel stuff though :(
