[cfe-commits] [PATCH] cindex.py optimization
Francisco Lopes da Silva
francisco at oblita.com
Sat Aug 18 17:56:16 PDT 2012
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>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list