Hi, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis:
> On Tue 24 Apr 2012 18:31, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: >> >>> I spent some time poking at vlists and ended up squeezing out a little >>> bit of performance. >> >> Any figures? > > Well, last time I checked, with the patch compiling peval.scm was 2.10 > seconds, compared to 2.35 without. Not tiny, not huge. OK. Would be nice to check with the micro-benchs in vlists.bm as well. >> Did you try fiddling with ‘block-growth-factor’, as suggested earlier? > > No I did not. Another thing one could fiddle with would be the block > size for a new list head. I feel like we need more metrics though: a > distribution of sizes of blocks, numbers of blocks in a vlist, hash > collisions per block, etc. I'll merge this to master soon and we can > check what impact the new hash function has on performance. Nice. Thanks, Ludo’.
