Re: shared-text substrings Dan Bornstein (07 Feb 2000 19:59 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Mike Wilson
(08 Feb 2000 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 18:06 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 18:16 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 19:11 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 20:41 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Dan Bornstein 07 Feb 2000 19:59 UTC
Michael Sperber: >I just doubt it's worth the tradeoff. Is there hard data that the >optimizations you envision actually give significant performance >gains? I've always found non-shared strings plenty fast. I know it's not hard scientific evidence, but at the company I currently work for, we have a Scheme-based engine generating web pages, which uses string-append in a fairly naive but straightforward way. It was way too slow, and that slowness was largely accounted for by time taken up in string-append. I implemented string-append/shared, switched code to use it instead of normal string-append, and got something like a 100x speed improvement, just from that change. Note that the obvious way to have made the code in question use strings in a less naive way would have basically been to implement the equivalent of string-append/shared, but at a higher level. -dan