The one flaw in that approach is that the “real” time doSomething() takes to execute can vary wildly depending on what other programs are running on the system and what its load is. This makes the performance measurement somewhat imprecise. One more accurate way of tracking the time it takes to execute code, assuming the … Read more
The following tests (compiled in Release mode, executed on a Mac Pro) indicate that filteredArrayUsingPredicate is slower than indexesOfObjectsPassingTest if you use a “textual” predicate, but faster if you use block-based predicate. The fasted method in my test was a simple (fast-enumeration) loop that adds all matching objects to a mutable array. Results for filtering … Read more
Yup. Measure-Command { .\do_something.ps1 } Note that one minor downside of Measure-Command is that you see no stdout output. [Update, thanks to @JasonMArcher] You can fix that by piping the command output to some commandlet that writes to the host, e.g. Out-Default so it becomes: Measure-Command { .\do_something.ps1 | Out-Default } Another way to see … Read more
One of the Roslyn engineers who specializes in understanding optimization of stack usage took a look at this and reports to me that there seems to be a problem in the interaction between the way the C# compiler generates local variable stores and the way the JIT compiler does register scheduling in the corresponding x86 … Read more
UPDATE 8/1730/2020: TF 2.3 has finally done it: all cases run as fast, or notably faster, than any previous version. Further, my previous update was unfair to TF; my GPU was to blame, has been overheating lately. If you see a rising stem plot of iteration times, it’s a reliable symptom. Lastly, see a dev’s … Read more
Stricto sensu, the GCC compiler middle-end is made of a sequence (actually a nested tree, dynamically changing during compilation) of optimization passes, so if GCC did no optimization, it won’t be able to emit any code. Think of it another way: the input language to GCC is quite rich (even for plain C, where you … Read more
The problem is not the length of the list but the number of SQL queries. If you have 160 elements you have at list 161 sql statements which seems to be very slow in your case (use a profiler to analyze). You can try to modify your linq query to join the required products with … Read more