Gc is giving back memory to the OS if there is 1 MB unused. When I increased
that to 8 MB (I don't remember the exact location, maybe allocate.nim, or
something like that), it helped a lot in these kind of benchmarks.
My apologies. I only looked at seq and (mistakenly) assumed all were faster. On
my (rather slow) laptop, the results of the ptr benchmark are
refc:
Sequence 2.70ms/iter
List 2.99ms/iter
FastStack 2.23ms/iter
Boehm:
Sequence 2.43ms/iter
List 3
> With the Boehm GC, seq is faster
With the Boehm GC **all three** are **slower** than with the default GC. Don't
see a point of Boehm in such case.
> Also, it's probably better to initialise FastStack to the same capacity as
> the seq
I'd better initialize the seq to the same capacity as Fast
With the Boehm GC, seq is faster in both of your benchmarks. The default
ref-counting GC definitely has limitations. Also, it's probably better to
initialise FastStack to the same capacity as the seq. 1000 vs 0 isn't really
fair.
[https://github.com/Vladar4/FastStack](https://github.com/Vladar4/FastStack)
FastStack is dynamically resizable data structure optimized for fast iteration
over the large arrays of similar elements avoiding memory fragmentation (e.g.,
update and rendering cycles of a game scene).
Judging by the
