jeeswg's benchmark tests

Put simple Tips and Tricks that are not entire Tutorials in this forum
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

19 Jan 2018, 14:58

Thank you - this is the result of one of me wanting to find out some of Helgefs remarks.
I could always help you splitting the topics if you need that. Same goes for editing the first post if you want to add new stuff.
Recommends AHK Studio
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

19 Jan 2018, 15:29

- The most practical solution, I think, everything considered, is this:
- We move this thread to a different forum, Scripts and Functions perhaps.
- It's too early to try to make this a 'tidy' thread, the posts will be being changed and added to for some time to come.
- At some future date, I could think about consolidating them in one place, in a perfected form.
- I will start a new tutorial, soon, explicitly regarding how to speed up scripts. It would be a one-post wonder, that I would continue updating from time to time. It would summarise everything that I'd discovered from doing benchmark tests.
- To maintain some order in this thread, the OP will list/link to each benchmark test.
Helgef
Posts: 3202
Joined: 17 Jul 2016, 01:02
Contact:

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

20 Jan 2018, 14:16

Your test is well formatted nnnik :thumbup:, note that it is ms not µs and the

Code: Select all

String from a variable, variable from an object - function with byRef:
line is used twice, the last time appears to be a mistake.

Cheers.
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

20 Jan 2018, 14:40

STRINGS: SUBSTR: CROP FIRST CHARACTER V. CROP LAST CHARACTER

- SubStr(vText, 2) v. SubStr(vText, 1, -1)
In the example below, cropping the last character was roughly 7 times faster.

Code: Select all

q:: ;crop first character v. crop last character
oQPC := []
vNum := 10000
vLen := 100000
VarSetCapacity(vText, vLen*2)
Loop, % vLen
	vText .= "a"
vText2 := SubStr(vText, 2)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	vText2 := SubStr(vText, 2)
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	vText2 := SubStr(vText, 1, -1)
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oQPC := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;crop first	crop last
;1126.564967	150.033698
;1086.523708	146.570629
;1133.453045	170.595727
;1170.836918	173.002940
;1096.475436	151.476573
- I remembered seeing a nice QPC function when reading through threads, turns out it wasn't this thread though. A function by Helgef based on a function by wolf_II.
[QPC function, returns milliseconds]
Anagrams - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic ... 64#p158464
[QPC function, returns seconds]
Code Puzzle Thread - Page 3 - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic ... 46#p186646
- I have added my version of the function to 'ASSUME ALWAYS' in the OP. It returns milliseconds. It's basically the same as Helgef's.
Last edited by jeeswg on 01 Feb 2018, 10:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 00:35

Here are 7 benchmark tests. Obvious mistakes/having potentially already done these tests earlier in the thread, are concerns.

[classic dichotomy]
benchmark tests - <= v. <
< slightly faster

[curious]
benchmark tests - || v. else
|| slightly faster

[classic dichotomy]
benchmark tests - for loop v. loop (on array)
loop slightly faster

[classic dichotomy]
benchmark tests - assign key, don't care about value (value as string/number)
'0'/'1'/(blank) roughly the same, 'a' takes about 40% longer

[curious][expected to take longer, but not this much longer]
benchmark tests - get file paths (A_LoopFileFullPath v. A_LoopFileLongPath)
A_LoopFileLongPath took around 65 times longer

[classic AHK knowledge]
benchmark tests - read lines (FileRead / FileReadLine / A_LoopReadLine / .ReadLine())
FileRead fastest
A_LoopReadLine slightly slower
.ReadLine() around 5 times slower than FileRead
FileReadLine around 350 times slower than .ReadLine() (so around 1750 times slower than FileRead)

[classic AHK knowledge]
benchmark tests - append text (with/without prior VarSetCapacity)
if don't prepare capacity, around 8 times slower (this is very much dependent on how many times expansion/copying is necessary)

Code: Select all

return

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - <= v. <
oQPC := []
vNum := 1000000

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	var := 2 <= 3
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	var := 2 < 3
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oQPC := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;3 <= 3		3 < 3
;174.843555	161.943055
;184.344235	157.053729
;179.711071	159.100035
;186.744636	157.246171
;190.099553	161.883184

;benchmark tests (ms)
;2 <= 3		2 < 3
;173.132954	166.935873
;184.478516	154.672572
;193.881265	155.923448
;175.886167	156.159512
;183.458571	155.182758

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - || v. else
oQPC := []
vNum := 1000000
a := 0, b := 0, c := 1

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	if a || b || c
	{
	}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	if a
	{
	}
	else if b
	{
	}
	else if c
	{
	}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oQPC := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;||		else
;188.241840	221.797423
;192.765525	216.007465
;186.399949	216.933756
;189.934480	211.650564
;187.081625	213.128950

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - for loop v. loop (on array)
oQPC := []
oArray := StrSplit("abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz")
vNum := 100000

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	for _, vValue in oArray
		vValue2 := vValue
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	Loop, % oArray.Length()
		vValue2 := oArray[A_Index]
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oArray := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;for loop	loop
;655.221461	559.977317
;607.630822	571.460156
;583.126885	537.965727
;616.441273	542.546290
;598.056586	537.650549

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - assign key, don't care about value (value as string/number)
oQPC := []
vNum := 1000000
vNum2 := 10

oArray := []
vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	oArray := []
	Loop, % vNum2
		oArray[A_Index] := 0
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

oArray := []
vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	oArray := []
	Loop, % vNum2
		oArray[A_Index] := 1
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

oArray := []
vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	oArray := []
	Loop, % vNum2
		oArray[A_Index] := ""
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

oArray := []
vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	oArray := []
	Loop, % vNum2
		oArray[A_Index] := "a"
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2 "`t" oQPC.3 "`t" oQPC.4
oArray := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;CATEG 1	CATEG 2
;2397.100274	2219.101515	2212.104300	3065.423231
;2228.236554	2188.672056	2203.594914	3018.515121
;2246.667000	2281.473461	2359.130911	3021.296987
;2259.591449	2240.394226	2218.417702	3008.272468
;2248.675674	2225.712134	2200.738638	3009.223134

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - get file paths (A_LoopFileFullPath v. A_LoopFileLongPath)
oQPC := []
vNum := 10
vDir1 := A_ScriptDir

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	Loop, Files, % vDir1 "\*", F
		vPath := A_LoopFileFullPath
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	Loop, Files, % vDir1 "\*", F
		vPath := A_LoopFileLongPath
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oArray := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;CATEG 1	CATEG 2
;11.150982	1521.535401
;21.380378	1428.592872
;19.755307	1403.026225
;21.218299	1407.470367
;24.869150	1406.404663

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - read lines (FileRead / FileReadLine / A_LoopReadLine / .ReadLine())
;note: creates file: A_Desktop "\z benchmark test num list.txt"
oQPC := []
vDir1 := A_ScriptDir
vNum := 1000

vPath := A_Desktop "\z benchmark test num list.txt"
if !FileExist(vPath)
{
	VarSetCapacity(vOutput, vLen*(StrLen(vLen)+2)*2)
	vLen := 10000
	Loop, % vLen
		vOutput .= A_Index "`r`n"
	vOutput := SubStr(vOutput, 1, -2)
	FileAppend, % vOutput, % "*" vPath
}
FileRead, vText, % vPath
StrReplace(vText, "`n", "", vLen), vLen += 1
vText := ""

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	FileRead, vText, % vPath
	Loop, Parse, vText, `n, `r
		vTemp := A_LoopField
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if 0
{
	vQPC := QPC()
	Loop, % vNum
	{
		Loop, % vLen
			FileReadLine, vTemp, % vPath, % A_Index
	}
	oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)
}
else
	oQPC.Push("")

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	Loop, Read, % vPath
		vTemp := A_LoopReadLine
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
{
	oFile := FileOpen(vPath, "r")
	Loop, % vLen
		vTemp := oFile.ReadLine()
	oFile.Close()
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2 "`t" oQPC.3 "`t" oQPC.4
oArray := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;vNum := 1
;FileRead	FileReadLine	A_LoopReadLine	.ReadLine()
;1.427069	2302.362469	1.400128	6.431433
;4.239726	2197.148941	1.378317	6.136354
;4.433451	2200.732650	1.549377	6.937344
;1.572470	2270.846778	1.380027	6.105563
;4.382133	2175.230578	1.375751	6.162014

;benchmark tests (ms)
;vNum := 100
;FileRead	FileReadLine	A_LoopReadLine	.ReadLine()
;1355.364595			1463.975378	6748.853790
;1315.788550			1423.718086	6300.894773
;1286.870408			1393.392546	6417.610384
;1345.471760			1450.831972	6503.906372
;1270.004734			1405.458700	6337.372063

;==================================================

;q:: ;benchmark tests - append text (with/without prior VarSetCapacity)
oQPC := []
vNum := 1000000
vNum2 := 1

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum2
{
	vOutput := ""
	VarSetCapacity(vOutput, vNum*StrLen(vNum)*2)
	Loop, % vNum
		vOutput .= A_Index
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum2
{
	vOutput := ""
	VarSetCapacity(vOutput, 0)
	Loop, % vNum
		vOutput .= A_Index
}
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oArray := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;prepare	don't prepare
;234.838192	1797.717545
;240.902701	1824.915678
;229.700828	1807.288787
;250.686058	1815.534740
;213.140070	1812.087451

;==================================================
Last edited by jeeswg on 01 Feb 2018, 10:35, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 03:50

From my tests the 1st test is always slightly slower than the following tests.
Recommends AHK Studio
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 04:11

After switching the order of some tests I got opposite results see:
< vs <=
( BTW both < and <= should be just as fast as the other since they are both a single CPU instruction )

Code: Select all

SetBatchLines, -1
t::
Thread, Priority, 2147483647
Process, Priority,, High
oQPC := []
vNum := 1000000

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	var := 2 < 3
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vNum
	var := 2 <= 3
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (seconds)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oQPC := ""
Process, Priority,, Normal
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return


QPC() {
	static frequency := "", init := DllCall( "QueryPerformanceFrequency", "UInt64*", frequency )
	DllCall( "QueryPerformanceCounter", "UInt64*", time )
	return time * 1000 / frequency
}
Recommends AHK Studio
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 04:53

Thanks nnnik, I had been concerned about whether order mattered. Does anyone have any ideas?
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 05:06

Rather than leaving it to writing manual tests all the time we should probably write a benchmark library - that handles the tests correctly
Recommends AHK Studio
Helgef
Posts: 3202
Joined: 17 Jul 2016, 01:02
Contact:

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 05:35

for loop v. loop (on array)
loop slightly faster
For me for-loop is faster, as expected.

Cheers.
note: this function returns seconds, the original function returns milliseconds
Note: Your function returns milliseconds.
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

01 Feb 2018, 10:27

- I had thought that the for loop might be faster. Why did we get different results (did you perform the tests twice, swapping the order, did you perform the operation more times)? Why are earlier tests faster within the same script run, should we have a delay after a hotkey is executed or a dummy test?
- I've tried to incorporate every piece of advice I've been given. So getting incorrect results at this stage is really facepalm.
- Btw how do x64/x32 compare generally?
- Also I've been wondering about 'CPU' benchmark tests, or other measures, i.e. the method that takes less of a toll on the system.
- Yes, Helgef, it's milliseconds. I've now corrected it everywhere in this thread. [@nnnik: could you edit your post to make it say 'benchmark tests (ms)', thanks.]
QueryPerformanceCounter MSDN page:
Retrieves the current value of the performance counter, which is a high resolution (<1us) time stamp that can be used for time-interval measurements.
...
A pointer to a variable that receives the current performance-counter value, in counts.
QueryPerformanceFrequency MSDN page:
A pointer to a variable that receives the current performance-counter frequency, in counts per second.

Code: Select all

;frequency = count / time
;count = frequency * time
;time = count / frequency
DllCall("kernel32\QueryPerformanceFrequency", Int64P,vFreq) ;count per sec
DllCall("kernel32\QueryPerformanceCounter", Int64P,vCount) ;count
MsgBox, % (vCount / vFreq) ;seconds
MsgBox, % (vCount / vFreq) * 1000 ;milliseconds
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

17 Feb 2018, 07:25

Here's an interesting one, object count keys: clone+delete v. for loop v. delete. See results at the bottom. Cheers.

Code: Select all

q:: ;object count keys: clone+delete v. for loop v. delete
oQPC := []
;MsgBox, % A_BatchLines

FileRead, vText, % A_ScriptFullPath
obj := {}
vIndex := 0
Loop, 100
;Loop, 10
	Loop, Parse, vText, `n, `r
		obj["z" (vIndex++) A_LoopField] := ""

vQPC := QPC()
obj2 := obj.Clone()
vCount2 := obj2.Delete("", Chr(65535))
vCount1 := obj2.Delete(obj2.MinIndex(), obj2.MaxIndex())
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)
;MsgBox, % (vCount1 + vCount2) " " vCount1 " " vCount2

vQPC := QPC()
vCount := 0
for k in obj
	vCount++
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)
;MsgBox, % vCount

vQPC := QPC()
vCount2 := obj.Delete("", Chr(65535))
vCount1 := obj.Delete(obj.MinIndex(), obj.MaxIndex())
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)
;MsgBox, % (vCount1 + vCount2) " " vCount1 " " vCount2

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2 "`t" oQPC.3
oQPC := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;clone+delete	for loop	delete
;26.080144	30.588842	9.340699
;28.071703	31.812344	8.898938
;28.127725	31.804219	9.552812
;34.065197	31.749052	9.851739
;33.889861	32.787383	9.871410
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

24 Feb 2018, 07:00

- I'd be interested in any benchmark tests re. optimising DllCall results, e.g. specifying dll name or not, specifying .dll or not, specifying W/A or not, using Int or "Int" and anything else. I haven't been able to get any clear-cut results so far.
- The documentation does mention about using LoadLibrary and using a function address (for dlls that aren't pre-loaded).
DllCall
https://autohotkey.com/docs/commands/DllCall.htm#load
- Also, any good example dlls/functions for testing would be helpful, it's hard to find the best ones for testing.

- Also, doing a benchmark test, with the exact same code being tested twice in a row, with one being faster than the other, is concerning.
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

24 Feb 2018, 07:35

jeeswg wrote:- Also, doing a benchmark test, with the exact same code being tested twice in a row, with one being faster than the other, is concerning.
Thats due to the way modern CPUs work - the thing you are looking for is called Branch Prediction.

Also after testing it myself it seems that using a pointer isn't faster than using the dll functions name.
Recommends AHK Studio
Helgef
Posts: 3202
Joined: 17 Jul 2016, 01:02
Contact:

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

25 Feb 2018, 14:31

Use, quotes for the types to avoid creating unnecessary variables. #NoEnv is important when omitting quotes for types, as documented. Also, if dllcall performance is an issue, AHK_H has dynacall, which is generally faster if I am not mistaken.

@nnnik, I think script code is a little too high level for branch prediction have this effect.

Cheers.
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

25 Feb 2018, 15:29

@Helgef yes it is. However AutoHotkey itself will speed up after the first test. ( The low level code that handles all sort of stuff )
Thats consistent with our findings that the 1st test is the slower than the second test of the same type no matter what happens.
Depending on which things we do our branch prediction might already be trained for specific actions in autohotkey while it isn't trained for others.
Recommends AHK Studio
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

13 Mar 2018, 02:07

Why do some people use the MulDiv function, instead of built-in operators?

Code: Select all

q:: ;MulDiv v. built-in operators
WinGet, hWnd, ID, A
oQPC := []
vCount := 1000000
;vNum1 := 20, vNum2 := 20, vNum3 := 10
vNum1 := 5, vNum2 := 5, vNum3 := 10

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vCount
	vRet := Round(vNum1 * vNum2 / vNum3)
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)
;MsgBox, % vRet

vQPC := QPC()
Loop, % vCount
	vRet := DllCall("kernel32.dll\MulDiv", Int,vNum1, Int,vNum2, Int,vNum3)
oQPC.Push(QPC()-vQPC)
;MsgBox, % vRet

if !(SubStr(Clipboard, 1, 16) = ";benchmark tests")
	Clipboard := ";benchmark tests (ms)`r`n;CATEG 1`t" "CATEG 2"
Clipboard .= "`r`n;" oQPC.1 "`t" oQPC.2
oQPC := ""
MsgBox, % Clipboard
return

;benchmark tests (ms)
;operators	MulDiv
;269.937165	556.748557
;270.149708	552.227010
;320.876307	550.009216
;281.163842	535.614933
;285.386034	521.193281
User avatar
nnnik
Posts: 3371
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 01:01
Location: Germany

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

13 Mar 2018, 02:34

Have you compared the precision of the results?
That would be my only guess
Recommends AHK Studio
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

02 Jun 2018, 16:23

- I ran some tests against A_ variables:

Code: Select all

;benchmark tests - A_ variables

;==================================================

;initialisation code taken from:
;jeeswg's benchmark tests - AutoHotkey Community
;https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=37876

#NoEnv
SetBatchLines, -1
AutoTrim, Off
ListLines, Off

;based on QPC by wolf_II
;note: this function returns milliseconds, the original function returns seconds
;Anagrams - AutoHotkey Community
;https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=34240&p=158464#p158464

QPC()
{
	static vFreq, vInit := DllCall("kernel32\QueryPerformanceFrequency", Int64P,vFreq)
	DllCall("kernel32\QueryPerformanceCounter", Int64P,vCount)
	return (vCount / vFreq) * 1000
}

;==================================================

;AHK v1/v2 A_ variables list based on:
;list of every command/function/variable from across all versions - AutoHotkey Community
;https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=27321&p=131642#p131642

;note: some of these variables are AHK v1/v2 only
vList := " ;continuation section
(
A_DD
A_DDD
A_DDDD
A_Hour
A_MDay
A_Min
A_MM
A_MMM
A_MMMM
A_Mon
A_MSec
A_Now
A_NowUTC
A_Sec
A_WDay
A_YDay
A_Year
A_YWeek
A_YYYY
A_AppData
A_AppDataCommon
A_Desktop
A_DesktopCommon
A_MyDocuments
A_ProgramFiles
A_Programs
A_ProgramsCommon
A_StartMenu
A_StartMenuCommon
A_Startup
A_StartupCommon
A_Temp
A_WinDir
A_AhkPath
A_AhkVersion
A_ComputerName
A_ControlDelay
A_Cursor
A_DefaultMouseSpeed
A_DetectHiddenText
A_DetectHiddenWindows
A_EndChar
A_EventInfo
A_IconFile
A_IconHidden
A_IconNumber
A_IconTip
A_Index
A_IPAddress1
A_IPAddress2
A_IPAddress3
A_IPAddress4
A_IsAdmin
A_IsCompiled
A_IsCritical
A_IsPaused
A_IsSuspended
A_KeyDelay
A_Language
A_LastError
A_LineFile
A_LineNumber
A_LoopField
A_LoopFileAttrib
A_LoopFileDir
A_LoopFileExt
A_LoopFileFullPath
A_LoopFileName
A_LoopFileShortName
A_LoopFileShortPath
A_LoopFileSize
A_LoopFileSizeKB
A_LoopFileSizeMB
A_LoopFileTimeAccessed
A_LoopFileTimeCreated
A_LoopFileTimeModified
A_LoopReadLine
A_LoopRegKey
A_LoopRegName
A_LoopRegTimeModified
A_LoopRegType
A_MouseDelay
A_OSVersion
A_PriorHotkey
A_ScreenHeight
A_ScreenWidth
A_ScriptDir
A_ScriptFullPath
A_ScriptName
A_Space
A_StringCaseSense
A_Tab
A_ThisFunc
A_ThisHotkey
A_ThisLabel
A_TickCount
A_TimeIdle
A_TimeIdlePhysical
A_TimeSincePriorHotkey
A_TimeSinceThisHotkey
A_TitleMatchMode
A_TitleMatchModeSpeed
A_UserName
A_WinDelay
A_WorkingDir
A_AutoTrim
A_BatchLines
A_CaretX
A_CaretY
A_ExitReason
A_FormatFloat
A_FormatInteger
A_Gui
A_GuiControl
A_GuiControlEvent
A_GuiEvent
A_GuiHeight
A_GuiWidth
A_GuiX
A_GuiY
A_LoopFileLongPath
A_LoopRegSubKey
A_NumBatchLines
A_OSType
A_ThisMenu
A_ThisMenuItem
A_ThisMenuItemPos
A_Args
A_ComSpec
A_CoordModeCaret
A_CoordModeMenu
A_CoordModeMouse
A_CoordModePixel
A_CoordModeToolTip
A_FileEncoding
A_Is64bitOS
A_IsUnicode
A_KeyDelayPlay
A_KeyDuration
A_KeyDurationPlay
A_ListLines
A_LoopFilePath
A_MouseDelayPlay
A_PriorKey
A_PtrSize
A_RegView
A_ScreenDPI
A_ScriptHwnd
A_SendLevel
A_SendMode
A_StoreCapsLockMode
A_TimeIdleKeyboard
A_TimeIdleMouse
A_DefaultGui
A_DefaultListView
A_DefaultTreeView
A_AllowMainWindow
A_InitialWorkingDir
A_TrayMenu
)"
;Clipboard := vList
;MsgBox, % vList
;MsgBox, % A_AhkVersion

vOutput := ""
VarSetCapacity(vOutput, 1000000*2)
vNum := 1000
Loop, Parse, vList, `n, `r
{
	vQPC1 := QPC()
	Loop, % vNum
		vTemp := %A_LoopField%
	vQPC2 := QPC()
	;note: 013.6f ;'6.6' or '5.6' if negative (e.g. 000123.456000 or -00123.456000)
	vOutput .= Format("{:013.6f}", vQPC2-vQPC1) "`t" A_LoopField "`r`n"
}
;Clipboard := vOutput
vPath := A_Desktop "\z benchmark tests A_ variables " A_Now ".txt"
FileAppend, % vOutput, % "*" vPath, UTF-8
MsgBox, % "done"
return
- Here are two batches of results for the slowest variables totalling 1 second or more for 1000 reads:

Code: Select all

tested using AHK v1.1.28.02 32-bit and Windows 7 64-bit

000001.155069	A_CaretX
000001.461263	A_Now
000001.507449	A_NowUTC
000001.603241	A_Cursor
000001.628045	A_Temp
000003.198785	A_MyDocuments
000003.312538	A_DesktopCommon
000003.389087	A_Desktop
000003.567842	A_AppDataCommon
000003.991211	A_ProgramFiles
000004.361552	A_AppData
000004.721201	A_Programs
000005.212993	A_StartupCommon
000005.621394	A_ProgramsCommon
000006.188024	A_StartMenu
000006.569911	A_StartMenuCommon
000006.825642	A_Startup
000007.420497	A_ComputerName
000035.593751	A_IsAdmin
000054.995151	A_UserName
005666.343224	A_IPAddress1
005687.383787	A_IPAddress2
005725.915460	A_IPAddress4
005747.310540	A_IPAddress3

000001.140529	A_Cursor
000001.163194	A_CaretY
000001.400110	A_Temp
000001.592550	A_NowUTC
000001.858973	A_Now
000003.325368	A_ProgramFiles
000003.407048	A_Desktop
000003.527216	A_MyDocuments
000003.835548	A_AppDataCommon
000003.891142	A_DesktopCommon
000003.917228	A_AppData
000004.063911	A_StartMenuCommon
000004.436390	A_StartMenu
000004.451785	A_StartupCommon
000004.682713	A_ProgramsCommon
000004.914924	A_Startup
000005.144142	A_Programs
000005.420828	A_ComputerName
000035.970506	A_IsAdmin
000064.701410	A_UserName
005734.154896	A_IPAddress2
005810.718752	A_IPAddress1
005832.851948	A_IPAddress3
005920.275848	A_IPAddress4
- Summary of results:
very slow: A_IPAddress1/2/3/4
quite slow: A_IsAdmin, A_UserName
also slow: A_CaretX/Y, A_ComputerName, A_Cursor, A_Now/A_NowUTC
also slow: dir-related variables:
A_AppData/A_AppDataCommon
A_Desktop/A_DesktopCommon
A_MyDocuments
A_ProgramFiles
A_Programs/A_ProgramsCommon
A_StartMenu/A_StartMenuCommon
A_Startup/A_StartupCommon
A_Temp

- Note: All of the variables mentioned in WINDOWS FOLDER LOCATIONS, here:
jeeswg's Explorer tutorial - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31755
appeared in the list of slow variables, apart from A_ComSpec and A_WinDir.
- Note: Clearly tests of file/registry loop variables should be done within loops for more useful results.

- Threads that prompted the tests:
A_LoopFileLongPath MUCH slower than A_LoopFileFullPath - Issues - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/board/topic/5561 ... efullpath/
Possible A_LoopFileLongPath bug - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42891
A_IPAddress Performance - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic ... 14&t=49910
- Note also:
Test build - Obj.Count(), OnError(), long paths, experimental switch-case - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic ... 24&t=47682
Fixes a significant performance issue with A_LoopFileLongPath (and A_LoopFileShortPath is also optimized).
User avatar
jeeswg
Posts: 5170
Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 01:58
Location: UK

Re: jeeswg's benchmark tests

02 Jun 2018, 20:53

- Here's a mod for the script above, you can include/comment out specifics line to give you results within/outside of a file/registry loop.

Code: Select all

;Loop, 1
;Loop, Files, % A_AhkPath, F
Loop, Reg, HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Notepad, V
{
	Loop, Parse, vList, `n, `r
	{
		vQPC1 := QPC()
		Loop, % vNum
			vTemp := %A_LoopField%
		vQPC2 := QPC()
		;note: 013.6f ;'6.6' or '5.6' if negative (e.g. 000123.456000 or -00123.456000)
		vOutput .= Format("{:013.6f}", vQPC2-vQPC1) "`t" A_LoopField "`r`n"
	}
	break
}
- I came across 5 A_LoopFileXXX variables that took more than 1 second for 1000 reads in the file loop.
- I found no A_LoopRegXXX variables that took more than 1 second for 1000 reads in the registry loop.
- Slower variables in the file loop:

Code: Select all

000003.304413	A_LoopFileTimeModified
000004.641231	A_LoopFileTimeCreated
000004.794328	A_LoopFileTimeAccessed
000296.564556	A_LoopFileShortPath
000299.004271	A_LoopFileLongPath

000002.910980	A_LoopFileTimeModified
000002.984107	A_LoopFileTimeCreated
000002.994798	A_LoopFileTimeAccessed
000262.751947	A_LoopFileLongPath
000286.073996	A_LoopFileShortPath
- A_LoopFileLongPath and A_LoopFileShortPath are addressed in this AHK test build:
Test build - Obj.Count(), OnError(), long paths, experimental switch-case - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic ... 24&t=47682
- My code here essentially recreates the logic used in an AHK file loop, most of the key file data is placed into a WIN32_FIND_DATA struct, which the A_LoopFileXXX variables no doubt refer to. AHK has to convert those UTC dates to local dates, which probably explains the relative slowness.
259-char path limit workarounds - AutoHotkey Community
https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26170
- (I had proposed A_LoopFileTimeModifiedUTC and A_LoopFileTimeCreatedUTC variables (and A_LoopFileTimeAccessedUTC for completeness), as they would be faster, but also more useful, when comparing files across DST and time zone differences.)
- (Similarly, an A_LoopFileAttribValue variable would be faster than A_LoopFileAttrib, as you'd get the raw number from the struct instead of converting the number to letters (from the list 'RASHNDOCT'), and more useful, as any unusual properties would also be listed.)

Return to “Tips and Tricks”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests