Re: Ann: Natools.Chunked_Strings, beta 1

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Natasha Kerensikova" <lithiumcat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:slrnjda2cc.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu...
> Hello,
>
> On 2011-11-29, Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> wrote:
>> Do you have some speed/memory comparison between your Chunked_String and
>> GNAT Unbounded_String?
>
> Not yet, but I would love to eventually have it. I'm mostly missing a
> proper benchmark protocol, and any input on that point would be
> appreciated.
>
> I was thinking of something like a reference text read line-by-line into
> one of these, checking time and memory usage after each append, hoping
> the overhead won't drown the measures (or measure once every N line
> instead). And check dispersion over a million or so trials. Something
> like that.

That sounds a lot like what the Trash-Finder spam filter 
(http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/prodinf/tf/tf-main.html) does (other than of 
course it reads a million copies of the same message as opposed to reading 
one copy a million times). It was written using Unbounded_Strings as an 
experiment (which was a failure, IMHO, it would have been better to use a 
discriminated record for this storage, since the unbounded strings are 
components in a record which has to be manually deallocated anyway).

One could imagine using a version of it fed with a static set of e-mail as a 
benchmark. The only problem is that I never published the entire source code 
(and it wasn't tested with GNAT, either).

Tell me if you want to try something with this.

                                Randy.