[rrd-developers] Re: Some minor changes proposal

Alex van den Bogaerdt alex at slot.hollandcasino.nl
Sun Oct 3 22:59:42 MEST 1999

> *> Tobi, you wrote about the "INT" operator being more general useful. 
> *> I do agree about that but I do think that if you only want operators
> *> that fall in that category you should mention it now. I'm sure that
> *> not only I will come up with other operators that are not-so-general :)
> I have no general opinion on these issues yet ... but we might have to do
> some performance evaluations of rrd_graph to see if the CDEF language
> verbosity has a siginificant impact ... 

Am I right in assuming that parsing a line is only done once?
(inside rrd_graph(), during "case GF_CDEF")

If so: performance should not suffer a lot since the operators are 
looked up from an array. I could be wrong -I'm no programmer- but
I think that "9,2,/,INT" will cost more than "9,2,DIV" even if DIV
would not be programmed in that first case.

I'm sure there are C-experts here who can do that test.
 / alex at slot.hollandcasino.nl                  alex at ergens.op.het.net \
| work                                                         private |
| My employer is capable of speaking therefore I speak only for myself |

* To unsubscribe from the rrd-developers mailing list, send a message with the
  subject: unsubscribe to rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch

More information about the rrd-developers mailing list