access on big array

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

Why is the access to DWORD-VarPtr three times slower (as LONG-VarPtr)?
Is there a faster way for access on big array?

#COMPILE EXE
#DIM ALL


FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG
LOCAL i          AS LONG
LOCAL a1         AS LONG
LOCAL a2         AS DWORD
LOCAL t1, t2, t3 AS SINGLE

    DIM arr(500000000) AS BYTE

    [B]' a1 --> long --> is speedy[/B]
    a1 = VARPTR(arr(LBOUND(arr)))
    t1 = TIMER
    FOR i = LBOUND(arr) TO UBOUND(arr)
        POKE a1, i+1
        INCR a1
    NEXT i
    t1 = TIMER - t1

    [B]' a2 --> dword --> is slower[/B]
    a2 = VARPTR(arr(LBOUND(arr)))
    t2 = TIMER
    FOR i = LBOUND(arr) TO UBOUND(arr)
        POKE a2, i+1
        INCR a2
    NEXT i
    t2 = TIMER - t2
    
    [B]' with array access --> is medium[/B]
    t3 = TIMER
    FOR i = LBOUND(arr) TO UBOUND(arr)
        arr(i) = i+1
    NEXT i
    t3 = TIMER - t3

    MSGBOX "1. Method:" + STR$(t1) + $CR+$CR + "2. Method:" + STR$(t2) + $CR+$CR + "3.Method:" + STR$(t3)
END FUNCTION

[Bob Zale Creator of PowerBASIC Find all posts View Profile Close Bob Zale]

The compiler (and the CPU/FPU) is optimized for the use of Long Integers. That's the preferred data type, whenever possible.

Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.

[Eric Pearson Member Find all posts View Profile Close Eric Pearson]

Not only that, but some versions of Windows give a performance boost to programs that have just been launched. Programs get more CPU cycles shortly after launch, then they are "throttled down"... so an overly-simple timing test may produce results that are biased toward the first test they perform.

Benchmarking is tricky!

-- Eric

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

@Bob:
I want to use the quick methode (with long pointer variable).

What if, there VarPtr get a negative address value?

dim p as long
dim test as byte
' Assumed: [B]test[/B] is saved on memory address 2,547,483,647

p = varptr(test)
' VarPtr supplies -1,747,483,649

POKE p, 65
' Is [B]POKE [I]-1747483649[/I], 65[/B] ok?

[Brian Chirgwin Member Find all posts View Profile Close Brian Chirgwin]

Pointers

I would not immediately recommend the following as the code is more difficult to maintain. It is more confusing especially to someone that does not understand pointer arithmetic. On the other hand, it is a nice performance increase.

Replace the MSGBOX in the original code with the following.

    Local nLBound As Long
    Local nUBound As Long
    Local ptrDWRD As Dword Pointer

    t4 = Timer
    nLBound = LBound(arr)
    nUBound = UBound(arr)
    ptrDWRD = VarPtr(arr(nlBound))

    For i = nLBound To nUBound Step 4
        ' Using a DWRD (4 bytes) add 1 to the high byte, add 2 to the second, 3 to the 3rd and 4 to the forth. 
       ' In Decimal this equals 1609060 [IF I have done my math correct.]
        
        @ptrDWRD = i + 16909060 ' 0000 0001 + 0000 0010 + 0000 0011 + 0000 0100
        
        Incr ptrDWRD ' DWORD Pointer, jumps ahead a DWORD, 4 bytes

    Next i
    t4 = Timer - t4

    MsgBox "1. Method:" + Str$(t1) + $Cr+$Cr + "2. Method:" + Str$(t2) + $Cr+$Cr + "3.Method:" + Str$(t3) + $Cr+$Cr + "4.Method:" + Str$(t4)
    
End Function

[Michael Mattias Member Find all posts View Profile Close Michael Mattias]

Simple change might help....

LOCAL A2  AS BYTE PTR    <<<< CHANGE 
'    ' a2 --> dword --> is slower
    a2 = VARPTR(arr(LBOUND(arr)))
    t2 = TIMER
    FOR i = LBOUND(arr) TO UBOUND(arr)
        @a2 = i+1
        INCR a2
    NEXT i
    t2 = TIMER - t2

BTW, you do realize you are generating a numeric overflow here, right? (as soon as I>=255). You are also forcing type conversions, which takes time. (trying to POKE a DWORD into a byte? but not stepping up the poke address by four?)

Granted this is test/demo code, but we see enough stuff here which does the same things and "bad results," "slow" or both is the result.

MCM

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

Simple change might help....

LOCAL A2  AS BYTE PTR    <<<< CHANGE 
'    ' a2 --> dword --> is slower
    a2 = VARPTR(arr(LBOUND(arr)))
    t2 = TIMER
    FOR i = LBOUND(arr) TO UBOUND(arr)
        @a2 = i+1
        INCR a2
    NEXT i
    t2 = TIMER - t2

This is as "slow" as the method number 2.
This help not.

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

My question is:

Working POKE correctly with LONG-addresses (from -2 to +2GB)?
What if, there VarPtr get a negative address value?

POKE is working automatically with the entire DWORD address space (from 0 to +4GB)?
Also when a LONG address variable is used?

[Edwin Knoppert Member Find all posts View Profile Close Edwin Knoppert]

Maybe i am not up to this subject but varptr() returns a dword.
A dword is never negative.

This may all need to be changed in 64bits computing but then.. the compiler produces 32bit apps.

[Edwin Knoppert Member Find all posts View Profile Close Edwin Knoppert]

Hmm, i don't think i would this as you are doing.
There are two different ways:

1) Dim At ....
2) Pointer[index]

The 2nd was told was slower for some reason.
Both avoid the poke and may be faster..
At the end, some form of byte copying is done after all of course.

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

Maybe i am not up to this subject but varptr() returns a dword.
A dword is never negative.

Yes.

But, when address-variable p is a long-variable?

What if VarPtr +2,500,000,000 (2.5GB!) there?
Then stand in p -1,700,000,000!

dim p as long
dim test as byte
[B]' Assumed: test is saved on memory address 2,547,483,647[/B]

p = varptr(test)
[B]' VarPtr supplies -1,747,483,649[/B]

POKE p, 65
' Is [B]POKE -1747483649, 65[/B] ok?

[Bob Zale Creator of PowerBASIC Find all posts View Profile Close Bob Zale]

Yes, you can do that safely.

Bob

[Michael Mattias Member Find all posts View Profile Close Michael Mattias]

LONG, DWORD, PTR... makes no difference as long as you are not doing arithmetic operations or comparisons. It's the same thirty-two bits.

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

Thanks all!

Another Question

POKE is working correctly even under the 64-Bit-Windows (with more as 4GB RAM)?
Or, It may cause any problems in the worst case?

[Edwin Knoppert Member Find all posts View Profile Close Edwin Knoppert]

I am sure you're under some kind of WOW32

[Michael Mattias Member Find all posts View Profile Close Michael Mattias]

POKE is working correctly even under the 64-Bit-Windows (with more as 4GB RAM)?
Or, It may cause any problems in the worst case?

The amount of physical memory does not matter.

32-bit applications run with virtual addresses in the range 0-0xFFFFFFFFF only, and everything you do in your application programs is done using only virtual addresses.

MCM

[Bernhard Fomm Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bernhard Fomm]

Ahhh... Okay... Many Thanks!