jtamate added a comment.
In D10857#214607 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D10857#214607>, @dfaure wrote: > I'm not opposed to the idea, but measuring CPU usage is a rather misleading indicator. What if it takes 10 times longer, because it's progressing much more slowly? ;) > > Please at least measure with QElapsedTimer around the sorting (not to be committed, just to gather numbers about the actual performance of this from a user's point of view). > I'm interested in the result ;) The results are strange. All the results are measured sorting 50.000 small files: Both Qt are the same version from opensuse. In an i5, why the difference is so big? recent cpu bugs? qSort in i3 274764, 276060 (with 3 directories), 365878, 424506 (without directories) std::sort in i3 940, 995 (with 3 directories), 2472, 2539 (without directories) In AMD the results are closer, qSort wins qSort in AMD 658, 726, 695, 683, 676, 666, 649, 684, 666 (without directories) std:sort in AMD 843, 839, 878, 896, 925 (without directories) REPOSITORY R241 KIO REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D10857 To: jtamate, #frameworks, dfaure Cc: markg, apol, michaelh
