Re: optimisation question

[Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@...>]

> > > Both runs on the same speed and profiling tells that most time spent
in
> > > a [for] loop.
> 
> As it turns out, my profiling was a bit wrong.
> But stills, the results are rather close.

Out of curiosity, how do you do your profiling? I use the classical time
spent between the start and the end 
of a code fragment, but running on Win98, results are not consistent from
one call to the next, sometime 
even inverting results. I choose the most frequent result... Alas, on
Windows, we don't have access to CPU 
time of a process.

> > or even better, make:
> > 		local t = {}
> > 		for i = n1, n2 do
> > 			t[i] = i
> > 		end
> > 		return table.concat(t, ",", n1, n2)
> 
> > a little faster, doing less computing...
> 
> > Tell me if it is better, using your profiling.
> 
> On my data (the most typical range is about 6 elements) it is a little
> SLOWER than string.format or concat version: 0.18 vs 0.16 for 1000
> calls on range with 6 elements and 0.72 vs 0.62 on range with 100
> elements.

Slower than the concat version? It *is* the concat version, I just avoid the
call to table.insert, and 
unecessary computations. I am puzzled.

-- 
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://jove.prohosting.com/~philho/
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--

+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++

Jetzt ein- oder umsteigen und USB-Speicheruhr als Prämie sichern!