I've been doing a little performance prototyping and my usual technique of logging milliseconds spent doesn't quite cut it as the result fluctuates between 0ms and 1ms - not enough granularity to allow for any useful comparison. Switching to nanoseconds does the trick - case A is a little over 0.6ms slower than case B in my test... Cool!

What's the difference between a nanosecond(10−9) and a microsecond(10−6)? Grace puts it in perspective... but I'm talking milliseconds(10−3)... so that'd be just shy of 300km per ms or 180km longer in A compared to B. What a waste...


No comments:

Post a Comment

We can't go on like this!

I'm sitting here in the sun - yes, it's sunny in south London - and for the past 30 minutes I've been trying to buy another of M...