[Pharo-users] [ANN] ZTimestamp

Paul DeBruicker pdebruic at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 18:14:37 EDT 2012


Yes I agree there's a need for speed.  I think ZnTimestamp is a valuable addition. 

And maybe the primitive that returns ms since epoch and offset gets adopted so DateAndTime can be nearly as fast. 



On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at beta9.be> wrote:

> 
> On 22 Jun 2012, at 22:23, Paul DeBruicker wrote:
> 
>> On 06/22/2012 01:11 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>> Here are some benchmarks:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ ZTimestamp now ] ] bench '1,910 per second.'
>>>>> [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ DateAndTime now ] ] bench '253 per second.'
>>> what? 253 per second? what it doing there?
>>> 
>> 
>> 253 iterations of 1000 timesRepeat:[DateAndTime now] per second.
>> 
>> So ~253,000 iterations of DateAndTime now per second.
>> 
>> [DateAndTime now] bench
> 
> Yes, depending on the use case one can discuss about the absolute numbers.
> 
> But consider a LRU style cache where on each operation the timestamp is updated to now, you'll want speed, right ?
> 
> Sven




More information about the Pharo-users mailing list