On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:16:34 +0100 Werner Pamler via Lazarus <lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
>[...] > When running the test you'll see that the LazUtils tree is almost a > factor 2 slower than the fpc tree. (0.6 sec vs 0.36 sec for populating a > 1000x1000 table, 16 sec vs 9.8 sec for a 5000x5000 table). Any idea why > the Lazarus tree is slower although the tree code should be the same, > Mattias? The FPC sources are compiled with -O2 and without any checks. And TAvgLvlTree had a further call when comparing. I inlined that now. Please test by compiling lazutils with -O2. In my tests TAvgLvlTree is a bit faster than the old TAVLTree. > You'll see also that the new optimized AddAscendingSquence speeds things > up considerably (4.6 sec vs 16 sec for 5000x5000). Why should someone consider an unrealistic test? > Since it calls the > normal Add if the new node does not fit at its assumed position I > suppose that nothing speaks against using this method as a general > replacement of Add in fpspreadsheet. Probably. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
