Difference between revisions of "Thread:User talk:Skilgannon/KDTree/Re: "pointer stack instead of object stack"/reply (2)"

From Robowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Yeah, that's exactly where I was trying to speed things up. The way it is now, any path that I don't descend never has its Node contents examined, because I don't have to open up the Node to get the <code>index</code> when checking the bounds. This means the Node contents (and the pointer to it) is never loaded ''unless'' it is determined that the Node needs to be searched.
+
Yeah, that's exactly where I was trying to speed things up. The way it is now, any path that I don't descend never has its Node contents examined, because I don't have to open up the Node to get the <code>index</code> when checking the bounds anymore. This means the Node contents (and the pointer to it) is never loaded ''unless'' it is determined that the Node needs to be searched.
  
 
Benchmarking says it's just a *tiny* bit quicker, and I like it so it stays =)
 
Benchmarking says it's just a *tiny* bit quicker, and I like it so it stays =)

Latest revision as of 08:23, 21 July 2013

Yeah, that's exactly where I was trying to speed things up. The way it is now, any path that I don't descend never has its Node contents examined, because I don't have to open up the Node to get the index when checking the bounds anymore. This means the Node contents (and the pointer to it) is never loaded unless it is determined that the Node needs to be searched.

Benchmarking says it's just a *tiny* bit quicker, and I like it so it stays =)