Optimized my program fron running 74 minutes to running 0.005 seconds. I call that a successful day.

No

Its an EPIC day

😁

74 minutes?

What did you compute?

@monkcs the circumference of the universe and Pi at the same time apparently

@vortexman100 …or maybe moved the return statement to the begining of main()? 😉

@monkcs Thanks for the tip! I'll make sure I use that technique in every program I write from now on

NICE!

Maybe He wanted to calculate PI for 10000000 decimal places and now found out he could just copy already know decimals and paste them into His code🤔

Why was it that slow in the first way? 😅

@monkcs hahaha that was funny

Does it still work like before? 🙃

I feel dumb since i was excited from turning a 10 million insterts from a query, from 1.5 minutes to 1.1 minutes :(

I am using something like a linked list + struct pointer, which is filled by a push function. This function loops over the entire list and appends to the last node. I removed the function and merged it with the filler loop (which is linux' nftw() btw) and made one string array in the struct to a string pointer, because otherwise the program allocates 4kb ram per node. Now the program only needs 0.005 seconds and ram usage went from 2.5 GB to 180 MB.

@monkcs I collected all data about every file in a soecific directory. In this case, my main NAS, which has about 6 TB files.

@monkcs Well, i honestly thought that. I checked everything, including printing out and core dumps. It worked.

@PenguinRage @wolt Well, when using liked lists the push function costs rises lineary, because it has to loop over everything. The nftw function has a callback function, which previously just called push(). Now i stored the current node in a global variable, which allows the callback to remember the position of its last append. So, performance never decreases. If you want i can give you the repo link :)

@eis6aer Oh, no, dont feel stupid. I had and now have to do exactly the same.

Maybe you have caching on? And the next run read it from cache 🤔

So before it lasted 74 mins before it would crash, now it takes 0.005 seconds to crash? 😋

Facepalm. Your original approach was very flawed.

Saving a pointer to the last node is a solution, as is passing the pointer to your push function. You should avoid using global vars, though

@Ashkin Yes, it was. But it is my first use of datastructures other than arrays.

@vortexman100 you're forgiven, then.

To quote my old computer architecture professor: when you write a software add useless loops around to have bad performances and release /sell as version 1.0, then remove some of them and release version 2.0 with "hey buy version 2.0, it is n times faster than 1.0"

@m93mark A wise man

Nice job. But I wonder how the 74min thing was accepted at the first place
It seems it's obvious something wrong.

My code won't run so fast, even without something written in it ._.

@krazycavin Its my project and i am the only one working on it, so...

did you remove sleep(1234567890123456) from your code?

@rephiscorth nice one

On the other hand, you had created a program that actually needed 0.005 seconds and took 74 minutes. That's a really bad day!

@tmux Maaaaaan, just let me feel good!

@vortexman100 you should feel good. You came back to refactor. You are better than 99% of us from this alone.

@tmux "You came back to refactor" sounds a bit like "You came back to take revenge and your rightful place as the king" or something...

int main() {
return 42; // fixes performance issue
// return computeAnswerToLifeTheUniverseAndEverything();
}