[cfe-commits] [PATCH] cindex.py optimization

[Francisco Lopes da Silva]

Sorry, first cames WITH strings comparisons, and then WITHOUT.

---

Francisco Lopes

Em 18/08/2012, às 21:52, Francisco Lopes da Silva <oblita at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hi Tobias, here's the data with and without the strings comparisons
> 
> WITHOUT:
> 
> libclang code completion
> ========================
> File: /Users/francisco/Desktop/sample/simple_bimap.cpp
> Line: 56, Column: 10
> 
>     std::
> 
>     libclang code completion -                    Get TU: 0.001s (  0.1% )
>     libclang code completion -             Code Complete: 0.252s ( 39.2% )
>     libclang code completion -    Count # Results (1740): 0.002s (  0.2% )
>     libclang code completion -                    Filter: 0.000s (  0.0% )
>     libclang code completion -                      Sort: 0.007s (  1.1% )
>     libclang code completion -                    Format: 0.293s ( 45.7% )
>     libclang code completion -       Load into vimscript: 0.023s (  3.6% )
>     libclang code completion -      vimscript + snippets: 0.065s ( 10.1% )
> 
>     Overall: 0.642 s
>     ========================
> 
>     clang_complete: completion time (library) 0.642779
> 
> WITH:
> 
> libclang code completion
> ========================
> File: /Users/francisco/Desktop/sample/simple_bimap.cpp
> Line: 55, Column: 10
> 
>     std::
> 
> libclang code completion -                    Get TU: 0.001s (  0.2%)
> libclang code completion -             Code Complete: 0.235s ( 49.2%)
> libclang code completion -    Count # Results (1740): 0.001s (  0.2%)
> libclang code completion -                    Filter: 0.000s (  0.0%)
> libclang code completion -                      Sort: 0.007s (  1.5%)
> libclang code completion -                    Format: 0.145s ( 30.3%)
> libclang code completion -       Load into vimscript: 0.023s (  4.9%)
> libclang code completion -      vimscript + snippets: 0.066s ( 13.8%)
> 
> Overall: 0.478 s
> ========================
> 
> clang_complete: completion time (library) 0.479182
> 
> 
> The rate between the two is .293/.145 = 2.02. So the truth is that nearly all the benefits got in the Format
> phase came by avoiding string comparisons, the caching does nearly nothing in this case because, in
> clang_complete, hardly there's double calls for the methods that are caching results.
> 
> 
> Regards,
>     Francisco.
> 
> Em 18/08/2012, às 21:12, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> escreveu:
> 
>> On 08/18/2012 11:56 PM, Francisco Lopes da Silva wrote:
>>> Hi, this patch contains optimizations for the python cindex binding,
>>> specifically for the CompletionChunk class. It tries to avoid calls to
>>> the c interface by caching the results, also, it improves internal
>>> checking by avoiding string comparisons and dictionary lookups.
>> 
>> Hi Francisco,
>> 
>> it is very impressive to see how much the caching of properties actual benefits clang_complete. Such a speedup is a very good reason to enable caching of properties.
>> The way the caching is implemented is correct, however I expect that we want to do more and more caching in the future. Hence, limiting the code bloat for caching seems to be important. I remember Gregory Szorc had a patch available that introduced a @CachedProperty that allows us to cache properties by just adding an attribute: https://github.com/indygreg/clang/commit/a4b533cea8cfce5d211d8e0477dd12fd66b35f5d
>> 
>> What about using this opportunity to add CachedProperty to the current cindex.py and to use it to implement the caching that you propose for the CompletionChunks.
>> 
>> Also, I did some experiments myself and I had the feeling a large part of the speedup you show came from caching, whereas avoiding string comparisons and dictionary lookups did not make such a big difference. Hence, I propose to first add the caching to cindex.py and then reevaluate the other changes on their own to see if the performance change they cause is worth the added complexity.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Tobi
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120818/58f653a6/attachment.html>