[rrd-developers] Re: Some minor changes proposal
oetiker at ee.ethz.ch
Sun Oct 3 23:29:32 MEST 1999
Today you sent me mail regarding Re: [rrd-developers] Re: Some minor...:
*> > *> 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.
the parsing is only done once but there is a switch/case statement for
evaluating the expressions. This sitts at the most inner loop of the CDEF
function ... I am not sure what the performance implications with large
switch statements are ... guess this can be optimized beautifully by the
______ __ _
/_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker, Timelord & SysMgr @ EE-Dept ETH-Zurich
/ // _ \/ _ \/ / TEL: +41(0)1-6325286 FAX:...1517 ICQ: 10419518
/_/ \.__/_.__/_/ oetiker at ee.ethz.ch http://ee-staff.ethz.ch/~oetiker
* 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