On Saturday, 6 April 2013 at 08:01:09 UTC, Adrian Mercieca wrote:
In my very simple test, the GC version of my program ran more
than twice
slower than the non GC version. I just cannot accept that kind
of
performance penalty.
Thanks.
I have ran into similar problems with D and understand what your
are looking for, so far the only solution is to change the way
you write your code. Automated memory management has pros and
cons, you are witnessing the cons and I don't know if a better GC
can really solve all of the cons.
In my case I have been able to mostly get around the problem by
strategically disabling the GC during active memory allocations,
and then re-enabling when all or most of the allocations are
completed. In effect I'm doing manual memory management all over
again because the automated version fails to do a good enough
job. Using this technique I've been able to get near C++
performance speeds.
Part of the problem is that the GC implementation is simply not
suitable for performance code and lacks fine tuning abilities
(that I'm aware of). Without a decent brain, it does stupid
things, so when you have a lot of allocations going on but no
deallocations, the GC seems to be running needlessly slowing down
the application by as much as 3x.
--rt
