sketchucation logo sketchucation
    • Login
    ℹ️ Licensed Extensions | FredoBatch, ElevationProfile, FredoSketch, LayOps, MatSim and Pic2Shape will require license from Sept 1st More Info

    Optimization Tips

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Developers' Forum
    110 Posts 22 Posters 168.8k Views 22 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • J Offline
      Jim
      last edited by

      That's showing a for loop in the c language.

      Hi

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • thomthomT Offline
        thomthom
        last edited by

        That's what it's doing under the hood.

        Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
        List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J Offline
          Jim
          last edited by

          @thomthom said:

          That's what it's doing under the hood.

          Right, so where is the definition for the for function?

          The answer is there isn't one because for is not a function, but is "sugar". The for loop in Ruby really uses the .each method behind the scenes.

          Although, I can't recall where I learned that. The link to the blog article mentions it, though.

          Hi

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • tbdT Offline
            tbd
            last edited by

            speaking of each vs for :

            loop1 = []
            loop2 = []
            
            calls = ["one", "two", "three"]
            
            calls.each do |c|
              loop1 << Proc.new { puts c }
            end
            
            for c in calls
              loop2 << Proc.new { puts c }
            end
            
            loop1[1].call #=> "two"
            loop2[1].call #=> "three"
            

            SketchUp Ruby Consultant | Podium 1.x developer
            http://plugins.ro

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Dan RathbunD Offline
              Dan Rathbun
              last edited by

              @jim said:

              The for loop in Ruby really uses the .each method behind the scenes. ... Although, I can't recall where I learned that.

              'Pick-Axe' > For ... In expressions

              I'm not here much anymore.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J Offline
                Jim
                last edited by

                I guess to get back on topic, for loops are not faster then .each iterators. The performance must have to do with how the for loop variables are not loop scoped, as in each.

                Hi

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • thomthomT Offline
                  thomthom
                  last edited by

                  Came across this link:
                  http://www.h3rald.com/articles/efficient-ruby-code-shortcut-review/

                  On that list it says
                  @unknownuser said:

                  Use parallel assignment (a, b = 5, 6) where applicable

                  while at this link:
                  http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ruby-speed-guide_hxa7241_2007.html

                  @unknownuser said:

                  Avoid parallel assignment

                  πŸ˜’

                  Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                  List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • thomthomT Offline
                    thomthom
                    last edited by

                    @thomthom said:

                    Came across this link:
                    http://www.h3rald.com/articles/efficient-ruby-code-shortcut-review/

                    On that list it says
                    @unknownuser said:

                    Use parallel assignment (a, b = 5, 6) where applicable

                    while at this link:
                    http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ruby-speed-guide_hxa7241_2007.html

                    @unknownuser said:

                    Avoid parallel assignment

                    πŸ˜’

                    I just bought the ebook and that review summary was wrong - parallel assignments are not recommended for performance important tasks.
                    Interesting read that book btw.

                    Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                    List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M Offline
                      MartinRinehart
                      last edited by

                      Let's see - for performance I'm going to avoid iterations, arrays, hashes and objects.

                      What's left?

                      Author, Edges to Rubies - The Complete SketchUp Tutorial at http://www.MartinRinehart.com/models/tutorial.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • thomthomT Offline
                        thomthom
                        last edited by

                        @martinrinehart said:

                        What's left?

                        puts "Hello World" πŸ˜„

                        Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                        List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • AdamBA Offline
                          AdamB
                          last edited by

                          @jim said:

                          I guess to get back on topic, for loops are not faster then .each iterators. The performance must have to do with how the for loop variables are not loop scoped, as in each.

                          "Your racing car is not faster than my Trabant, it just covers more ground in a shorter time than my car." πŸ˜„

                          Developer of LightUp Click for website

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • C Offline
                            cjthompson
                            last edited by

                            Has anyone looked into Enumerable.grep()? it seems pretty useful, but I don't know how fast it is.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J Offline
                              Jim
                              last edited by

                              @adamb said:

                              @jim said:

                              I guess to get back on topic, for loops are not faster then .each iterators. The performance must have to do with how the for loop variables are not loop scoped, as in each.

                              "Your racing car is not faster than my Trabant, it just covers more ground in a shorter time than my car." πŸ˜„

                              Heh? Oh. Yes, I see. 😳

                              Would it be correct to say: An each loop can be as fast as a for loop if the loop variable has been initialized?

                              Hi

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • thomthomT Offline
                                thomthom
                                last edited by

                                That would mean it's not the each loop itself that's slow - but the creation of variables.

                                Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                                List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J Offline
                                  Jim
                                  last edited by

                                  Exactly.

                                  Hi

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • thomthomT Offline
                                    thomthom
                                    last edited by

                                    Vertex.position is slow! Cache the result if you need to use the same Point3d multiple times.

                                    Point3d.distance also accepts Vertex objects in place of Point3d or Array.
                                    point1.distance(vertex2) is faster than point1.distance(vertex2.position).

                                    Link Preview Image
                                    Sketchup Vertex.position speed performance - ThomThom's Website

                                    favicon

                                    (www.thomthom.net)

                                    Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                                    List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • AdamBA Offline
                                      AdamB
                                      last edited by

                                      Its all interesting info you're digging up thomthom, but I wonder where you're going..

                                      Ruby is a scripting language that makes for very quick development, modern constructs and good readability. So you pay for that with execution performance. However, performance with a big P which may include how fast you can complete and deliver functionality may be better - but once again I do think you should play to Ruby's strength rather than perhaps bend it into something it isn't.

                                      By the time you've created local copies of state, rewritten everything using a compact form etc etc you end up with something that is less readable and probably more prone to bugs. And as you've discovered, there is a massive difference in performance between native code and Ruby - such a large gulf, you're never going to come even close to closing it.

                                      You should do heavy lifting with a C extension and GUI / API / semantic stuff with Ruby. Processing geometry topology with Ruby is, in general, not practical. Not that it can't be done..but that's not what I'm suggesting.

                                      Developer of LightUp Click for website

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • thomthomT Offline
                                        thomthom
                                        last edited by

                                        @adamb said:

                                        Its all interesting info you're digging up thomthom, but I wonder where you're going..

                                        That was actually stuff I found out before I got around to do a C extension.
                                        Jumping from Ruby - or any other scripting language - C extensions is not an easy jump. If C isn't your cup of tea then it's worth knowing what saves time in Ruby. Most plugin writers here doesn't do C and have no interest in it either. Just making something that work - but still one can save noticeable time.

                                        What I found most interesting in those test was that Vertex is a valid argument where the manual claims only Point3d. And passing the Vertex is faster than Vertex.position.

                                        As for C extensions - it appear that there's a significant overhead of converting VALUEs to workable C types - so if you iterate only once over a set of data there isn't much to gain. Only if there's quite a bit more calculations.

                                        Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                                        List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • AdamBA Offline
                                          AdamB
                                          last edited by

                                          @thomthom said:

                                          As for C extensions - it appear that there's a significant overhead of converting VALUEs to workable C types - so if you iterate only once over a set of data there isn't much to gain. Only if there's quite a bit more calculations.

                                          Not really. You asked the wrong question, so you perhaps got an answer that has misled you.

                                          You asked about converting Ruby arrays to C etc. And everything I said stands. However, sounds like you actually want a C extension that operates upon the Ruby structures. If you have a situation where you are just wanting to twiddle existing Ruby data from C, it is well worth doing even for 1 pass because the fixed costs are pretty much zero.

                                          Developer of LightUp Click for website

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • thomthomT Offline
                                            thomthom
                                            last edited by

                                            I'm very green to this Ruby <-> C interaction - so its very likely I'm not doing thing the right way around.

                                            @adamb said:

                                            However, sounds like you actually want a C extension that operates upon the Ruby structures.

                                            What I have done so far is to calculate the soft selection for my Vertex Edit. So for each vertex in the selection set I needed to find the closest closest distance to any of the vertices not selected. It was the distance method that was so slow.
                                            I did some tests - created a dummy set of 3d data in C and calculated the soft selection for that. Very fast. But as soon as I made the source data set come from RUBY it became very slow. The C function was setting two sets of ruby arrays of vertices. Getting the X,Y,Z data for each vertex seemed to be very slow - converting Vertex to Point3d and then converting the X,Y,Z into C doubles.
                                            For every vertex in the selection I was iterating the remaining set of vertices and converting them.
                                            What I then did was to do a pre-pass of the non-selected vertices and create an C array of point3d structs. I then got a big speed increase. That's what lead me to the impression that converting Ruby VALUES to C types are expensive.

                                            Thomas Thomassen β€” SketchUp Monkey & Coding addict
                                            List of my plugins and link to the CookieWare fund

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 6
                                            • 2 / 6
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Buy SketchPlus
                                            Buy SUbD
                                            Buy WrapR
                                            Buy eBook
                                            Buy Modelur
                                            Buy Vertex Tools
                                            Buy SketchCuisine
                                            Buy FormFonts

                                            Advertisement