Hi,
Zack Weinberg wrote:
Sure, but C++98 requires size() to be O(1) for every container, so
there's really no excuse for a 4-15% performance difference.
Here are the results I got from this test run. It's a debian lenny
machine, comparing these revisions:
new: 805c482bc9bb80cd393be7d3ba01a65377d91d9c
ref: d1bd931bd76507267b99e57be07125dbb2335fd5
(which is from nvm.cvsimport-branch-reconstruction, but
that does only change rcs_import.cc, so annotate shouldn't
be affected at all)
annotate-a-ref.csv annotate-a-new.csv p
annotate-avg-resident-MiB 30.12 23.72 0.00
annotate-avg-size-MiB 125.68 119.28 0.00
annotate-max-resident-MiB 40.38 34.22 0.00
annotate-max-size-MiB 136.90 130.86 0.00
annotate-num-samples 2089.20 1982.80 0.16
annotate-system-time 0.82 0.85 0.11
annotate-user-time 4.35 3.49 0.00
annotate-wall-time 10.60 10.06 0.16
annotate-b-ref.csv annotate-b-new.csv p
annotate-avg-resident-MiB 17.62 11.75 0.00
annotate-avg-size-MiB 110.95 103.95 0.00
annotate-max-resident-MiB 24.82 18.66 0.00
annotate-max-size-MiB 121.46 115.32 0.00
annotate-num-samples 702.60 599.80 0.17
annotate-system-time 0.19 0.18 0.26
annotate-user-time 0.68 0.51 0.00
annotate-wall-time 3.59 3.05 0.16
annotate-c-ref.csv annotate-c-new.csv p
annotate-avg-resident-MiB 18.42 12.45 0.00
annotate-avg-size-MiB 111.05 104.89 0.00
annotate-max-resident-MiB 24.48 18.30 0.00
annotate-max-size-MiB 121.06 114.96 0.00
annotate-num-samples 778.40 712.40 0.05
annotate-system-time 0.25 0.24 0.67
annotate-user-time 0.95 0.74 0.00
annotate-wall-time 3.95 3.63 0.06
annotate-d-ref.csv annotate-d-new.csv p
annotate-avg-resident-MiB 34.34 28.24 0.00
annotate-avg-size-MiB 130.00 124.07 0.00
annotate-max-resident-MiB 42.30 35.93 0.00
annotate-max-size-MiB 138.82 132.57 0.00
annotate-num-samples 3443.20 3213.50 0.00
annotate-system-time 1.02 1.02 0.84
annotate-user-time 8.85 7.82 0.00
annotate-wall-time 17.48 16.29 0.00
This leads me to think that the STL implementation doesn't provide an
O(1) implementation for size()... savings is avg memory consumption
seems to confirm this, no?
Other explanations?
Regards
Markus Wanner
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
