speed on windows

[Scott Wheeler]

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 
same thing.

> 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.)

-Scott

-- 
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: 
premature optimization is the root of all evil.
-Donald Knuth