Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #162046
| From | Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length |
| Date | 2021-07-24 01:07 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20210723180723.700@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | <U3iJI.61694$VU3.5811@fx46.iad> <sd4em5$694$1@dont-email.me> <OvjJI.64366$Vv6.35081@fx45.iad> |
On 2021-07-19, dfs <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 7/19/21 2:01 PM, Bart wrote: >> On 19/07/2021 17:50, dfs wrote: >>> Loaded a list of words into an array. >>> >>> The 370103 words came from https://github.com/dwyl/english-words >>> file = words_alpha.txt >>> >>> Tested a couple memory allocation 'strategies' during loading: >>> >>> 1. allocate the strlen() of each word >>> 2. allocate a fixed length (len of longest word = 32) >>> >>> I figured getting strlen(word) each time would be slower than >>> allocating a fixed amt of memory, but that wasn't the case. >>> >>> Strategy 2 is significantly slower, and uses nearly 3x the memory. > > Any thoughts on this? It must be that malloc is decently optimized for very small object sizes?
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 12:50 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-19 19:01 +0100
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 14:29 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-19 19:49 +0100
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 18:01 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-19 23:25 +0100
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-19 20:00 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 23:29 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2021-07-20 00:30 +0100
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 20:40 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2021-07-20 17:00 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-24 01:07 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-19 21:35 +0200
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 18:02 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Ike Naar <ike@rie.sdf.org> - 2021-07-19 21:11 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 18:03 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2021-07-20 05:28 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 18:21 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-19 23:29 +0100
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-19 18:40 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2021-07-20 11:44 +1000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2021-07-20 22:15 +0000
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-20 20:22 -0400
Re: Allocate length of word vs fixed length dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-07-21 23:23 -0400
csiph-web