|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister|
Re: threads::shared seems to kill performanceby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Jul 18, 2013 at 00:33 UTC||Need Help??|
Yes, shared aggregates are considerably slower than non-shared.
But try it this way and it'll be about 2/3rds less slow:
That said, building a 2D HoH of empty hashes (with consecutive numerical indices?) doesn't seem very useful.
Presumably that structure will need to be populated at some point -- and with that amount of data it must becoming in from outside the program -- and once you add the IO to fetch the data into the mix, the cost of making the data shared will pale into insignificance.
If instead of building a huge, empty shared data structure, and then populating it, (which will take considerable further time), you shared and populated it in one pass, you'd save considerable time and the sharing costs would almost disappear in amongst the IO costs.
Tell us more about what goes in this monster, where that comes from; and how it is used and we'll probably be able to help you save a lot of time.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.