[Kevin Jacobs, on Neil's tuple-untracking patch] > Sorry, I wasn't very clear here. The patch _does_ fix the performance > problem by untracking cycle-less tuples when we use the naive version of > our code (i.e., the one that does not play with the garbage collector). > However, the performance of the patched GC when compared to our GC-tuned > code is very similar. Then Neil's patch is doing all that we could wish of it in this case (you seem to have counted it as a strike against the patch that it didn't do better than you can by turning off gc by hand, but that's unrealistic if so), and then some: >>> The good news is that another (unrelated) part of our code just became >>> about 20-40% faster with this patch, though I need to do some fairly >>> major surgery to isolate why this is so. That makes it a winner if it doesn't slow non-pathological cases "too much" (counting your cases as pathological, just because they are <wink>).
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4