Problems with 20 Timers

[dvb at ixalon.net (Chris Warren)]

> > What do people think, would it be worth me writing a patch?
> 
> I don't think we should make things more complicated than necessary.
> 
> My VDR has over 30 timers and I don't have any problems with 
> excessive latency.
> 
I just did a (very quick and hacky) comparason - I added 2 std::maps to
cSchedule:
  std::map<u_int16_t,cEvent*> eventIDMap;
  std::map<time_t,cEvent*> eventStartTimeMap;

By modifying cSchedule::AddEvent and cSchedule::GetEvent as described below,
I managed to cut the most CPU intensive function's execution time to an 80th
of the original! (from 83.79% of CPU time down to 1.12%!)

                   %   cumulative   self              self     total
                  time   seconds   seconds    calls   s/call   s/call
vdr_orig.profile: 83.79     51.93    51.93    70436     0.00     0.00
cSchedule::GetEvent(unsigned short, long) const
 vdr_mod.profile:  1.12      7.98     0.11    70436     0.00     0.00
cSchedule::GetEvent(unsigned short, long) const

I know it adds a little complexity to things, but with such an improvement
in lookup speed, maybe its worth looking at replacing the lists with a tree?

Chris

---


cEvent *cSchedule::AddEvent(cEvent *Event)
{
  events.Add(Event);
  eventIDMap[Event->EventID()] = Event;
  eventStartTimeMap[Event->StartTime()] = Event;
  return Event;
}

const cEvent *cSchedule::GetEvent(u_int16_t EventID, time_t StartTime) const
{
  std::map<u_int16_t,cEvent*>::const_iterator it = eventIDMap.find(EventID);
  if(it != eventIDMap.end()) return it->second;
  std::map<u_int16_t,cEvent*>::const_iterator it2 =
eventStartTimeMap.find(StartTime);
  if(it2 != eventStartTimeMap.end()) return it2->second;
  return NULL;
}