From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a65bb7bde679ed1d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.36.6 with SMTP id m6mr316514pbj.4.1322598348408;
        Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:25:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 lh20ni39421pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tornevall.net!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ann: Natools.Chunked_Strings, beta 1
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:25:44 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jb3f4a$72s$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <slrnjd9tpk.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <4ed4fc37$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
 <slrnjda2cc.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1322598347 7260 69.95.181.76 (29 Nov 2011 20:25:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:25:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14731
Date: 2011-11-29T14:25:44-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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.