Maybe so. I'll look. The gain inside my v1 and v2 versions comes from avoidable allocations that I did not worry about at first, but did in the second case. The parallel speed up is the beauty of Go and nothing to do with me or algorithm details.
I will look at your program to see how similar our approaches happen to be. I think there is still room for significant improvement in mine. On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:11 PM Éric Jacoboni <eric.jacob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le dimanche 26 février 2017 19:05:38 UTC+1, Michael Jones a écrit : > > Back on the ground for a bit with speedup news. My first ever performance > tuning over Iran turned out well, the 1000000 case formerly... > > on the same MacBook Pro. I also changed the code to take advantage of the > MBPs multiple cores. In that case we get... > > real 0m0.238s > user 0m1.266s > sys 0m0.014s > > for the same results using 4 cores on battery power. I continue to feel > good about achievable performance in Go. > > Oooch... Very fast, indeed... But, to be fair, this huge performance gain > is related to your algorithm, not really to the language, is'nt it ? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Michael T. Jones michael.jo...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
