From: Calum Grant (calum_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-07 14:47:23
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> > > OTOH, writing a primitive optimizer, would, in our
> opinion do more
> > > harm than good.
> > By "harm" do you mean have worse performance?
> Yes, and also (possibly) inability to handle more complicated cases.
Well I certainly agree that a library that couldn't handle complicated
cases, or whose performance was poor, would need a rethink.
But I don't think RML is in that category. It has excellent performance
and can handle very complex queries. I should exercise caution however
- I await to see how well your library copes with 1000000 items, does a
self-join, adds another 1000000 items and does a second self join. You
sound fairly confident that you will beat me!
If you like you can come up with an extremely complex query - and we can
> > If you're going to make claims about the performance of an
> > then you need to have benchmarks. You can't argue about air. For
> > example the RML benchmarks
> > http://visula.org/relational/benchmarks.html
> > show RML to be matching or outperforming std::map.
> > Would you care to benchmark your RTL versus RML or the STL before
> > making such claims? I think that would settle which
> approach did more
> > "harm".
> Note that I didn't say RML's approach is harmful. All I said
> is that a simplistic approach to implementing optimizer is
> IMO inacceptable. Are you saying your optimizer is simplistic? :-)
Of course not!
> I believe that talks about performance are premature. I
> think it's time to talk about what can and what can't be done
> with this libraries. Then comes the optimization.
I don't think talking about performance is premature. If we are going
to provide a practical library, then performance matters. If a user has
a choice between using RTL in a real application, but it is 10 times
slower than Boost.MultiIndex, then I expect most users would stick with
Boost.MultiIndex. People need to know.
On the other hand, I believe that RML is a much easier and more
efficient (than std:: containers) way to manage collections. But I am
> As for benchmarks, for such simple case as yours, you don't
> need RTL -- you can benchmark sorted std::vector or
> Boost.Multi_index. The performance of RTL will not be
> different, since it's based on these containers. To
> outperform STL is definitely not one of RTL's tasks.
> For more complicated cases though, such as ones that I
> described in my original post, RTL does provide an efficient,
> index-based solution, while other libraries, AFAIK, don't.
In that case, could you give an example where RTL would be efficient,
while "other libraries" would be inefficient. I have a case for you
that might not be so efficient in RTL: What about indexing on multiple
columns? This is what RML is designed for, otherwise you may as well
just use std::map.
Although it sounds a little competitive, I think it's pretty instructive
to be able to compare different implementations.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk