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'm used to the 4-pack, it's more compact and more readable
;)
my compact example is on the front page... that's basically where it all started ))))
hmmm, I think you have bits that don't want to build into bytes...there are basically no more options! ))))
if this thread is under the gaze of a moderator, something needs to be done... I took the macro apart for parts,
Artem, does it even work?
2019.07.30 19:42:16.639 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) Start test #1...
2019.07.30 19:42:40.199 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) CopyClose : loops=500000000 , ms=23422
2019.07.30 19:42:40.199 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) Start test #2...
2019.07.30 19:43:26.953 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) iClose : loops=500000000 , ms=46609
2019.07.30 19:43:26.953 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) Start test #3...
2019.07.30 19:44:12.274 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) Close[i] : loops=500000000 , ms=45156
2019.07.30 19:44:12.274 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) Start test #4...
2019.07.30 19:44:42.080 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) CopyRates : loops=500000000 , ms=29656
2019.07.30 19:44:42.080 tst_iXXX_Copy (EURUSD,H1) End script
Yes, it works:
Bottom line:
What's wrong? Why do I have a difference of more than six times?
SZ run on D1
What's wrong? Why do I have a difference of more than six times?
hmmm, I think you have bits that don't want to build into bytes...there are basically no more options! ))))
)))
Igor Makanu:
hmmm, I think you have bits that don't want to build into bytes...there are basically no more options! ))))
)))
Did a test on H1, no discernible difference:
and bits and bytes have nothing to do with it?
and bits and bytes have nothing to do with it?
I'm not going to tell you that your computer must be stupid, am I?
I've tested several times, Roman has tested - the results are comparable.
For this test, the speed of the hard drive should not be critical, there is not much left: OS, and hardware = memory + CPU, somewhere there is something slow,
there is of course an option in some "inner world" Core i3 , i have a Core™ i3-4170
I'm not going to tell you that your computer must be stupid, am I?
I have tested several times, Roman has tested - the results are comparable
For this test, the speed of the hard drive should not be critical, there is not much left: OS, and hardware = memory + CPU, somewhere there is something that lags,
there is of course an option in some "inner world" Core i3 , i have a Core™ i3-4170
I have a test EA hanging on the second symbol, in which the event control in the timer is constant. We can assume that it affects it somehow. And only onnon CopyXXX functions. There is no reason to remove it from the chart at the moment - its presence is more important for my current affairs than this test.
Did a test on H1, no noticeable difference:
The developers once said that the new iXXX functions in 5 are just a wrapper for CopyXXX functions.
Therefore, no difference in single queries is to be expected.
What is the verdict on function speed - which is faster?
they work the same, imho experiments are for experiments... here's the last test call for half a billion times, well yeah you can see the difference, the only thing left is to figure out how many ticks in a minute (~60), how many in a tick in an hour (~3600) and how many in a day (~86400) and how much these 23 seconds will run for half a billion calls ...
5 787 days = 23 seconds profit? if we use the fastest function on each tick! )))))
imho, use what's convenient and don't listen to anyone
I forgot about testing and optimization, Igor. That's where the speed is needed.
I forgot about testing and optimisation, Igor. That's where the speed is needed.
Yeah, well... There's just not a serious bunch of people here discussing this topic, so it completely slipped my mind what it's all for ))))
You're right! - But we need a convenient use of CopyOpen() functions... to do, and probably if we wrap CopyOpen() call in additional function, then performance gain will be lost.
ZZY: imho, in general it's like everywhere else - you write in assembler, you get long development time and not the fact that final performance will be higher than using C++, which you wrote in 15 minutes - you should check it