I tried to optimize Ruby a bit more. The results vary quite a lot with benchmarks, but typical improvement is about 5% less time and 4% less memory. More about it: * http://t-a-w.blogspot.com/2007/02/ruby-and-judy.html And a patch against Ruby 1.8.2-p12: * http://zabor.org/taw/ruby-performance-patch-judy-2...
on 2007-02-27 02:32
on 2007-02-27 11:19
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:31:49AM +0900, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > I tried to optimize Ruby a bit more. The results vary quite a lot with > benchmarks, but typical improvement is about 5% less time and 4% less > memory. > > More about it: > * http://t-a-w.blogspot.com/2007/02/ruby-and-judy.html > And a patch against Ruby 1.8.2-p12: > * http://zabor.org/taw/ruby-performance-patch-judy-2... I wrote a naïve patch to use Judy for ruby's internal tables in 2002; unlike yours, it replaced all st_tables IIRC, but some of the feedback from Judy's author might still apply, see . matz took a look at Judy last year, see http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/20060628.html He seemed pretty excited about it, but the license (LGPL) would make integration a bit cumbersome. Normally, a patch like this should be tested in HEAD before it gets in the 1.8 branch, but it's knu's call, of course. PS. please don't include all of configure when just configure.in will do ;)