Re: [Caml-list] Now it's faster (addendum to "Performance-question")

[David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>]

A possible improvement of the buffer library (along with a ropes
library) may be a good future subject for OSR. Well, once we have
answered the already-asked questions, of course.

Cheers,
 David

On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 13:04 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> well i'm pretty sure you could go down even further with your own
> implementation of a buffer library.
> 
> the buffer library is actually pretty bad since it's actually just a
> simple string. each time the buffer need to grow, the string is
> reallocated and the previous one is copied to the new string.
> and you got the 16mb limit (max_string_length) on 32bit.
> 
> if you implement a growing array of fixed sized string (4K for example),
> you just don't need to copy data each time your buffer need to grow. I
> suspect it might be even faster than the normal buffer in your case
> (lots of data appending), but depends on what you do with your buffer
> afterwards.
> 
-- 
David Teller
 Security of Distributed Systems
  http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.