On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:34:12PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:08:24PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > Then when running the same command, we get results that are quite > > encouraging. The runtime jumps to 24.213 seconds, which is ~9.73 seconds > > slower than the average of the baseline measurements. But it takes > > ~10.418 seconds on my machine to compute the forward index. So it's > > really around 688ms *faster* than the baseline, despite doing a little > > more work. > > Sorry, there is a much quicker way to generate the forward index at > runtime, which is the following: > [...] Neat. I didn't see timings for this method, but I'd assume it's quite fast. So if it shaves off the same 688ms, I'd expect it to be an overall win. The code itself looks reasonable to me. I think when you re-post this series it might make sense to add a t/perf script to demonstrate these timings (not just what we're discussing here, but also the overall speedup we're hoping to achieve). -Peff
