speed on windows
wheeler at kde.org
Tue Jul 25 18:39:44 CEST 2006
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 17:53, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> i compared the tag scanning speed of taglib
> with that of foobar and the result is that
> scanning 1068 files took 20 seconds with
> taglib and about 5 seconds the first time
> with foobar and only 1 second when re-reading.
> i guess foobar is using some caching/file
> modification tricks but even the very first
> time foobar was significantly faster.
No, that's the disk buffers and is an OS feature -- all OS's do that. TagLib
would be much faster the second go around as well. I suspect the better
numbers later have more to do with the buffering than the API used.
As for comparisons with Foobar, well, it's hard to say if they're doing the
> i tried to replace the crt function calls
> with windows own file api and that decreased
> the time needed to about 8 seconds which
> is still slower that foobar but less than
> half the time taglib needed before.
> i cannot offer a ready-to-apply patch right
> now but maybe we should think about this
> again after the windows-port-question is
> answered in general.
> btw does anybody know if there is really
> no native [...]
Uhm, fopen() and friends aren't UNIX functions, they're standard C.
Just to be clear, I really don't intend to let the code base diverge where not
we're not facing real compatibility issues. (Just as I wouldn't add hack
arounds for a super-fast BSD API.)
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
premature optimization is the root of all evil.
More information about the taglib-devel