Re: [pygccxml-development] Another performance tweak

[Allen B. <al...@vr...>]

Roman Yakovenko wrote:

> On 8/28/06, Allen Bierbaum <al...@vr...> wrote:
>
>> I now have preliminary numbers. My build that used to take 58 seconds
>> now takes 76 seconds with your caching changes. So it looks right now
>> like the implementations I was using were about 25% faster for some 
>> reason.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>
> I don't know why, but I think I prefer to pay this price. I prefer
> code, that I can maintain. Sorry.

It is probably no surprise that I disagree.  The extra 25% performance 
seems like a good thing to me.

Why were the extra layers of indirection needed in your implementation?

In my implementation I just tried to keep everything local to the method 
I was optimizing.  In that way I thought it was pretty maintainable 
because that method was the only place in the code that set or used the 
cache value.  This still allowed for disabling caching by using a module 
level variable to prevent the cache from being set.

What caused this local encapsulation to be less maintainable?

> You already achieved x10 improvement. This is a grate result. Lets 
> stop here.
>
I don't know if I will ever stop looking for ways to make this code run 
faster, but I will probably stop soon so I can just use the code instead 
of trying to improve it.

-Allen