Concerning speedtests

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Fri Dec 5 13:10:27 EST 2003


Wouter wrote:

>> What you're testing is a very fast operation.  I found that if I
>> increase the number of iterations by one order of magnitude the
>> variance drops proportionately.
>
> Yes, sure. But sometimes the differences are such
> that testing for tweaking a handler is not really reliable.

In-place profiling is hard.  I wrote RevBench to allow easy comprison of
snippets, but in many cases I need to test whole sequences of handlers.

With the HyperRESEARCH application I develop for ResearchWare, last year I
set out to remove some bottlenecks in legacy code.  The best approach I
found at the time was to add calls to a logging handler at he beginning and
end of handlers I was profiling, noting the handler name, params, and
millisecs.  It took a few minutes to set up but told me what I needed to
know.  Before shipping I just commented the logging handler so it does
nothing; if I need it again in the future it's one de-comment away. :)

Not the most graceful solution but it got me through the day in the asence
of a built-in profiler.

-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___________________________________________________________
 Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com
 Tel: 323-225-3717                       AIM: FourthWorldInc



More information about the Use-livecode mailing list