4 ms·

Here's the diff in Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/wT8gXtBJ https://pastebin.com/wT8gXtBJ One just clones the single word, rather than cloning the whole words v

Here's the diff in Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/wT8gXtBJ https://pastebin.com/wT8gXtBJ One just clones the single word, rather than cloning the whole words vector. Something that can also be improved in the code above (I've done the most minimal change) is to move the Vector instantiation outside the for loop, since print_translations() guarantees that the vector has the same content before/after invocation.

brabel 5y ago
You cloned every word, which is much worse than cloning the vector (which only clones a couple of pointers). Here's the performance of the original code: ===> ./phone_encoder Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24584192,198 Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24584192,461 Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24612864,1735 Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24612864,3207 After your change: Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24608768,205 Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24592384,490 Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24600576,1745 Proc,Memory(bytes),Time(ms) ./phone_encoder,24608768,3388 It's actually surprising that your change didn't make it much worse, but compared with the version where the lifetimes are used to avoid cloning anything at all, both of these are extremely slow.