[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Aug 2022 20:36:34 +0300 |
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: stefan@marxist.se, 57079@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 19:23:10 +0200
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> delete-dups is destructive. You can copy the list first, of course, but
> >> seq-uniq should be much faster than it is.
> >
> > How much faster? Using copy-sequence and delete-dups is 7 times
> > faster here than seq-uniq and twice faster than
> > gnus-delete-duplicates.
>
> I didn't claim that seq-uniq will be faster than copy + delete-dups; I
> just said that it's unnecessarily slow.
But the above means that using seq-uniq with TESTFN nil is going to be
unnecessarily slow from the get-go. People shouldn't use seq-uniq if
they don't need a non-default TESTFN, because much faster
implementations exist.
IOW, since this bug is about speed, not anything else, I think making
seq-uniq faster when TESTFN is nil isn't the right solution, the right
solution is to point out that seq-uniq's purpose in this case is not
to be a Speedy Gonzales.
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Stefan Kangas, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Juri Linkov, 2022/08/09
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/12
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/08/12
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/13
- bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/08/13