From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15119BC6C for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:33:54 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAH8pqUfAXQImh2dsb2JhbACQMgEBAQgKKZ0R X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,312,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7701359" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 12:33:53 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m16BXh9D000477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:33:53 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAH8pqUfAbSoIZmdsb2JhbACQJQ0LCiadFA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,312,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6988567" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 12:33:49 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id m16BXmV1001336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:33:48 +0100 Received: (from www-data@localhost) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id m16BXmeZ001332 for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:33:48 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: einhorn.in-berlin.de: www-data set sender to oliver@first.in-berlin.de using -f Received: from dslb-088-073-095-085.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-088-073-095-085.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.73.95.85]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (IMP) with HTTP for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:33:48 +0100 Message-ID: <1202297628.47a99b1c7ec53@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:33:48 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Now it's faster (addendum to "Performance-question") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47A99B17.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 appending:01 occurences:01 speedup:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 strings:01 string:02 gprof:03 seems:03 theses:05 middle:94 somewhere:06 long:06 Hello, only to complete the thread... ...I have switched from one suspicious function that uses lists to one that uses Maps, but this was not brininging much speed-up. So my list-based implementation seems to be not that bad. Then I switched from a string appending function that uses "^" to the Buffer-module, because I remembered that it helped my in other programs also to speed up. I have now about 1/3 less running time for the tool, and I have not all occurences of the "^" using function weeped out. So this will bring even more speedup, when making theses changes complete. :-) But the general behavour that in the middle of the run there is a slow-down did not go away so far. gprof also shows similar percentage values. But possibly the remaining "^"-applications stops somewhere and somehow, when some very long strings are concatenated? I will see, when throwing out that stuff completely. Ciao, Oliver