On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 20:43, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 22:30, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did some further tests this time with some tuple deforming. Again, > it does seem that v9 is slower than v8. > > Graphs attached > > Looking at profiles, I don't really see any obvious reason as to why > this is. I'm very much inclined to just pursue the v8 patch (separate > Result Cache node) and just drop the v9 idea altogether.
Nobody raised any objections, so I'll start taking a more serious look at the v8 version (the patch with the separate Result Cache node). One thing that I had planned to come back to about now is the name "Result Cache". I admit to not thinking for too long on the best name and always thought it was something to come back to later when there's some actual code to debate a better name for. "Result Cache" was always a bit of a placeholder name. Some other names that I'd thought of were: "MRU Hash" "MRU Cache" "Parameterized Tuple Cache" (bit long) "Parameterized Cache" "Parameterized MRU Cache" I know Robert had shown some interest in using a different name. It would be nice to settle on something most people are happy with soon. David
