Hi Benjamin,

We are in the state, when we mainly have to concentrate on big improvements
that we have to deliver till mid of March.
I keep your ideas, but they are stuck at the end of my TODO list.

Thanks. Dmitry.


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Benjamin Coutu <ben.co...@zeyos.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
> I was doing some code review of ext/standard/array.c and have recognized
> some potential for a few performance improvements:
>
> === ARRAY_SLICE(..., preserve_keys=false) ===
>
> array_slice() can always construct a packed array if preserve_keys is
> false, restricting it to inputs with packed flag does not make much sense.
> Removing the check for packed inputs on line 2376 would improve
> performance if used on non-packed inputs with the default
> preserve_keys=false.
> Furthermore, ZEND_HASH_FOREACH_VAL should be used instead of
> ZEND_HASH_FOREACH_NUM_KEY_VAL on line 2379.
> It also think range() should use FAST_ZPP as it is a basic language
> feature (other languages even have extra operators for it, e.g. [0..10])
>
> === RANGE(...) ===
>
> range() always returns a numerically indexed array [0..count-1]. The
> resulting array therefore should be constructed as a packed array
> (ZEND_HASH_FILL_PACKED+ZEND_HASH_FILL_ADD instead of
> zend_hash_next_index_insert_new).
>
> === ARRAY_FILL(start_key=0, ...)
>  ===
>
> Just like with range(), array_fill() always returns a numerically indexed
> array [0..count-1] if start_key is 0. In this special but very common case
> the resulting array can be constructed as a packed array
> (ZEND_HASH_FILL_PACKED+ZEND_HASH_FILL_ADD instead of
> zend_hash_next_index_insert_new).
> Another common case is for start_key to be 1. One could refine the
> proposed packed-array branch to just set the first bucket to undefined in
> this case.
>
> === COUNT(...) ===
>
> count() is so ubiquitous! Giving it an opcode and making it part of the VM
> seams reasonable.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
>
> --
>
> Benjamin Coutu
> Zeyon Technologies Inc.
> http://www.zeyos.com
>
>

Reply via email to