Re: Efficient Sequential Access to Arrays

[Keean Schupke <keean.schupke@googlemail.com>]

On Saturday, 21 July 2012 17:14:11 UTC+1, Keean Schupke  wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:52:48 UTC+1, Georg Bauhaus  wrote:
> > On 21.07.12 10:24, Keean Schupke wrote:
> > > Ignoring performance which is the best way to structure this? Is there another way I have missed?
> > 
> > If returning had meant a copy anyway, a copying procedure
> > seems another option.
> 
> Okay, but not suitable for large values if we care about performance.
> 
> > 
> > Also, are there cases where some callback style interface would do?
> > That is, pass an "algorithm" to the containing structure for
> > computation much like the Process parameter of Query_Element,
> > or like when GUI classes expect programmers to write a concrete
> > implementation of some abstract type that specifies the protocol.
> 
> Here are my results:
> 
> 24 byte nodes (all integers) : 42k sims per second
> 16 byte nodes (all short_ints) : 40k sims per second
> 32 byte nodes (all integers + padding) : 42k sims per second.
> 
> So 32bit integers seem faster than 16bit integers, and as the whole data set fits in the cache (its less than 10kbytes) the size of the nodes does not really affect performance.
> 
> I try something like query element next and see how that performs.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Keean.
> 
> 
> On Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:52:48 UTC+1, Georg Bauhaus  wrote:
> > On 21.07.12 10:24, Keean Schupke wrote:
> > > Ignoring performance which is the best way to structure this? Is there another way I have missed?
> > 
> > If returning had meant a copy anyway, a copying procedure
> > seems another option.
> > 
> > Also, are there cases where some callback style interface would do?
> > That is, pass an "algorithm" to the containing structure for
> > computation much like the Process parameter of Query_Element,
> > or like when GUI classes expect programmers to write a concrete
> > implementation of some abstract type that specifies the protocol.

With Query_Element, why is passing an anonymous access to a function considered better than returning an access type? I guess the best way to do this is with generics to avoid the function access?

Cheers,
Keean.