From: SASADA Koichi Date: 2013-05-20T18:28:05+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:55084] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8426] Implement class hierarchy method caching (2013/05/20 16:23), funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov) wrote: > "sparse array" - is a lightweight hash structure which maps 32bit integers to st_data_t values. > It is more compact and faster replacement for st_table for integers (aka st_init_numtable). > It is CPU cache friendly on read, and it's hash function is tuned against ID pattern > (tuned is a great word, I were just lucky. At least, every other "better" hash function, > like MurmurHash3 finalization, produce worse overall performance, and I could not explain why). > > I've made it as a replacement for all usages of st_table as symbol table in my patch: methods, > constants, ivars, - and it shows noticeable performance gain (~5-8%). When James Golick makes > its method caching patch, I recommend him to use "sparse array", and he reports it efficiency. > > It will be even better to embed sa_table into rb_classext_struct and do not allocate it separately. > If patch will be accepted, I could made such change. I got it (I don't check data strucuture details). I prefer that it is similar name with st, for example, st_numtable_t, I can associate with special case of `table'. But not strong opinion. If st_init_numtable() returns st_table * but use sa.c functions, it seems cool (OO-way). but additional branch cost (so high?). > Considering uint64_t - it should be 64bit value, so that there is no need to check for overflow > (even if one increments it 4_000_000_000 per second, it will take 70 years to overflow). > So that, it should be > > #if HAVE_UINT64_T > typedef uint64_t version_t; > #else > typedef long long version_t ; > #endif I understand your concern. My last suspicious is that I'm not sure `long long' is always supported. however, i'm not sure there is such environment, too. there is a similar discussion (we can assume 64bit integer type or not). Experts may dicide it. -- // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net