3 ms·
The synchronisation/set-up overheads are still fairly large (e.g. communicating with the GPU). I find it rather unlikely that e.g. a map over 20 elements will b
by dbaupp 12y ago
The synchronisation/set-up overheads are still fairly large (e.g. communicating with the GPU). I find it rather unlikely that e.g. a map over 20 elements will be faster in parallel.
- jacques_chester 12y agoIt might not be. But I am happy to ignore the question and leave it to the compiler or runtime to take advantage of easy parallelism. Maps allow that, loops (or any other sequential treatment of data) doesn't. My personal brand of bigotry is relational databases, so I am accustomed to thinking of sorted / ordered behaviour as the special case. Thinking in sets is very powerful. It doesn't have to be either/or. Sometimes you need a loop. But it would be nice to have mapping too.