Skip to content

Conversation

@albinahlback
Copy link
Collaborator

It seems to work just fine. Want to say that using QS_SIQS_FSEEK_SEEK_CUR will not work if you are going to write, it will only work if you are going to read.

Solves #708, but could very much be improved.

@albinahlback
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Currently, this is about 0.6% slower when factoring

19714781844001166488455486606377739043994798987566671863342247690296820624767507 =
2673983399403925307863620624678723438299 * 7372813850824920691267112915018383684393

so I will try to speed it up first before merging anything.

@fredrik-johansson
Copy link
Collaborator

0.6% is hardly measurable. Are you sure it's not just random noise?

@albinahlback
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0.6% is hardly measurable. Are you sure it's not just random noise?

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure it is actually is slower. Could be that pushing everything to RAM instead of storage introduces more cache misses.

If you feel like it is worth a small slowdown to go away from temporary storage, please merge.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants