Errors, bugs, questions - page 2507
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I've worked out the original idea (the first code didn't count the addresses correctly). If you don't mind, it will be interesting to see the result with you.
It varies a lot from run to run, you can't tell the difference from one side to the other. Of course, I'm running the Release version.
A dynamic array has more checks, Renat once wrote, I can't find the post, just talking about index access, why it is significantly slower than pluses
It turns out that when filling dynamic arrays, it is better to fill static arrays first, and then do ArrayCopy to dynamic arrays.
What causes this slowdown?
You have made a dynamic array out of a static one. Hence all the resulting type problems:
When the first and second loops run at different speeds.
Thank you. It's strange, of course. I have a stable difference.
Thank you. It's strange, of course. I have a stable difference.
It turns out that when filling dynamic arrays, it is better to fill static arrays first, and then do ArrayCopy to dynamic arrays.
So it is!
It is!
Well initialisation is usually a one-time thing and most of the time you don't have to worry about speed. (plus memory overhead)
But if there is constant index access and for example in ~99.9% of cases maximal array size is known, probably it makes sense to write your own simple wrapper around static array to replace dynamic one.
Well initialisation is usually a one-time thing and most of the time you don't have to worry about speed. (plus memory overhead).
I have a record slowing down when parsing ticks. There are tens of millions of them, so it matters.
But if there is constant reference by indexes and for example in ~99.9% cases maximal size of array is known, probably it makes sense to write your simple wrapper around static array instead of dynamic one.
It might make sense to do a wrap on read as well.
SZZ On read, I can't get any speedup.
It is!
my fillarray1 is slightly faster
and the reading's a mess.
my fillarray1 is slightly faster
Release version is running. Optimisation enabled.