| Pete Dashwood 2005-07-25, 10:01 pm |
| Apologies to Clark, see below.
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3k86utFl4gssU1@individual.net...
>
> "Clark Morris" <cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:e1atd11fi2cshuqsgg11l78qp1n840102p@
4ax.com...
> <snip>>>
>
> Yes, necessarily. :-) Three factors affect online performance; two of
> them are load time and capture time. The smaller and tighter a module is,
> the quicker it loads and it will be likely to require less capture time.
Although I said 'likely to' here, I behaved as if it said 'will'.
>
> Capture time for a process will be improved if there is less code for the
> process to execute (as long as it provides the same functionality, of
> course.)
Large iterations with indirect addressing are just one case where small code
may have a large capture time. I was wrong to overlook this, and I'm sorry,
Clark.
>
> Adding code cannot possibly make it execute any faster than it is required
> to. And if everything else is equal, the faster load time of a smaller
> module makes overall execution quicker. If a small module is being paged
> in and out continually, as opposed to a large resident piece of code, then
> the overall execution of the small module functionality may be longer, but
> that implies that the large piece of code is doing more (otherwise, why is
> it so large?), so the comparison is between apples and oranges
>
> Given identical functionality and identical residence, the smaller the
> code is, the quicker it will execute. Invariably.
Nope, not invariably. I was wrong.
Pete.
<snipped>
|