2b5c606b   
   From: alan_mckenney1@this.is.invalid   
      
   Francis Glassborow wrote:   
      
   > Whilst I guess you cannot show the real code would you post:   
   > 1) The test programs and methodology you used to come up with that   
   >    claim.   
   > 2) The general nature of the software being produced.   
      
   I do not work for an academic institution, so I hope you will   
   understand that I may feel the need to be circumspect with details,   
   and that my employer might not see any benefit to my publishing   
   anything.  Their only interest is in not needing to buy more hardware,   
   network capacity, etc.   
      
   I think I can describe the general methodology, since IMHO it's pretty   
   obvious: Basically, we use recordings of actual data activity and   
   replay them for testing.  We do profiling, make changes, and   
   ultimately we have to prove that we've actually reduced CPU time and   
   improved throughput by performance testing, again with recordings of   
   actual production data activity.  Reducing the frequency of heap   
   allocation/deallocation and the use of std::string (other than   
   read-only access) tends to be the low-lying fruit.   
      
   I'm not interested in making any general claim about costs.  I simply   
   wanted to indicate that the claim that allocation/deallocation costs   
   can be ignored is not true in all applications.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)