On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 23:23:37 UTC, anonymous wrote:
Why the parallel version is slower then the sequential?
If you set
int n = 14 in the main function
the parallel version is MUCH slower then the sequential. At my
machine
7x slower. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
I don't know what's going on here. You're allocating a lot of
`TreeNode`s, though. That's probably not very parallelizable.
The GC could also play a role.
found and tried out the -vgc option...
Is there a way to deactivate the GC, if it stands in way?
In this case, I think you're fine. Generally, be aware that D
doesn't shine when you create lots of throw-away objects. The
GC can't compete with those of C# or Java, so when you
translate code from those languages too closely, performance
may be worse.
Yes, I thought in the same direction. That's why I tried to
reimplement the c++ version. The idea was: as I can't compete
with the GC of C#, I could try to compete by applying another
approach. I don't try to write something which compete with c++
either (I would have to take c++, then? ;) ), but something which
clearly outperforms the languages with a virtual machine...
tried the -inline option... no time win...
