From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Cecil Westerhof Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Performance Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:41:10 +0200 Organization: Decebal Computing Message-ID: <87eig0radl.fsf@linux-lqcw.site> References: <87vd9gawv6.fsf@linux-lqcw.site> <87r5k3qcz5.fsf@linux-lqcw.site> <87r5k3do35.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1277113252 9484 80.91.229.12 (21 Jun 2010 09:40:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:40:52 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 21 11:40:50 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQdUl-0006Hq-JN for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:40:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39232 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQdUk-0005Z4-UG for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:40:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36189 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQdUb-0005Yz-Ef for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:40:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQdUa-0002DS-3e for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:40:37 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.27]:4708) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQdUZ-0002Cy-RQ for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:40:36 -0400 Original-Received: from linux-lqcw.site (84-53-123-169.wxdsl.nl [84.53.123.169]) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5L9eVBY031704 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:40:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Cecil@decebal.nl) In-Reply-To: <87r5k3do35.fsf@ambire.localdomain> (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:44:14 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-Homepage: http://www.decebal.nl/ X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:7914 Archived-At: Again, because the first I only send to Thien-Thi instead of to the mailing list. Op zaterdag 19 jun 2010 17:44 CEST schreef Thien-Thi Nguyen: > Re performance, take a look at the lower-level procedures used to > implement the high-level =E2=80=98read-line=E2=80=99. The lowest ones re= quire an > explicit buffer to be passed in by the caller. If you modify your > program to use these, you can control the timing and frequency of > that buffer's allocation, and thus improve the program's performance. The problem is that input/output is not the problem. When just adding this statement: (set! found-match (regexp-exec reg-exp this-line)) the program takes 65% more time. So it looks like that rex-exps are very expensive. --=20 Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof