[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: LuaJIT2 and lua_dump()
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:50:04 +0800
Joshua Jensen wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Shmuel Zeigerman
Date: 3/2/2010 9:47 AM
In my experience, ASCII Lua-files after deletion of redundant
whitespace characters are usually smaller than their binaries.
So, here we go. I'll use exact bytes this time:
asciidata.lua - 134,280,891 bytes
asciidata-luasrcdiet.lua - 133,759,270 bytes
binarydata.lua after luac - 26,654,637 bytes
Computer-generated code would probably not have much
whitespace-type bits to cut out of course, so not much of a point
even trying lstrip or LuaSrcDiet there...
Interesting difference in size, possibly indicative of a regular
pattern or something more bulky than usual. Would be interested in
a snippet as an indication of what asciidata.lua looks like...
Load asciidata.lua - 1.99 seconds
Load asciidata-luasrcdiet.lua - 1.98 seconds
Load binarydata.lua - 0.07 seconds
I measured the in-memory parsing/loading difference at about 9. It
looks to me that there might be a pattern in asciidata.lua that is
making parsing slower. Just a wild stab in the dark...
But no matter, binary chunks are fast.
Still, if binary chunks on LuaJIT2 is a moving target, then I
guess you would need to either contribute code (and track a moving
target) or sponsor its development...
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia