-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 801
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add util.In( any thing, vararg values ) #2056
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Allows you to check if `thing` is among `values`. Using the function, we can do this: ```lua local myUsergroup = 'user' if util.In( curState, 'user', 'vip' ) then -- ... end ``` ... instead of: ```lua local allowedUsergroups = { user = true, vip = true, } local myUsergroup = 'user' if allowedUsergroups[ myUsergroup ] then -- ... end ``` Of course, the second code is faster because it performs a key lookup (which is O(1) vs. my O(n) implementation), but `util.In` is useful in contexts where performance is not so important
Bad naming aside,
I understand this is less efficient than the proposed method, but by your own admission that is not the focus here. |
Not creating the table would indeed be much more efficient when JIT compiles the select calls. Not as efficient as creating a hashtable with true vals, but for dynamic vararg values, this seems like the best solution. Efficiency should be the focus of this addition. |
@@ -408,3 +408,15 @@ function util.IsBinaryModuleInstalled( name ) | |||
|
|||
return false | |||
end | |||
|
|||
function util.In( thing, ... ) | |||
for i = 1, select( '#', ... ) do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: I think it was Spar who demonstrated that localizing your for limit makes it marginally faster.
Something like:
for i = 1, select( '#', ... ) do | |
local limit = select( "#", ... ) | |
for i = 1, limit do |
might be a nice microoptimization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see how this is an improvement since the loop limit is only evaluated once.
Does it behave like that in GLua too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes
Not sure how I can improve on my solution ( except for brandonsturgeon's suggestion). Of course, pretty much the same thing can be done using Regarding the function name - I was guided by Python syntax: if thing in (a, b, c):
# ... |
Yes, performance is not a focus, because in that case I will use a key lookup. However, the developed solution, although similar to |
With regards to the name, |
util.In:
sum = 0.286
avg = 0.00286
median = 0.0030000000000001
util.In2:
sum = 0.0020000000000024
avg = 2.0000000000024e-05
median = 0 function util.In2( thing, ... )
local iMax, i = select( '#', ... ), 1
::iter::
if thing == select( i, ... ) then
return true
end
i = i + 1
if i <= iMax then goto iter end
return false
end |
Sample size and size of |
lib: https://github.com/Be1zebub/Small-GLua-Things/blob/master/sh_benchmark.lua util.In:
sum = 0.035
avg = 0.00035
median = 0
util.In2:
sum = 0.00099999999999767
avg = 9.9999999999767e-06
median = 0
benchmark("util.In", function()
a = util.In(userName, "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", userName)
end, 1000, 100)
benchmark("util.In2", function()
a = util.In2(userName, "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user", "admin", "test", "user","admin", "test", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", "user", userName)
end, 1000, 100) table unpack util.In:
sum = 0.113
avg = 0.00113
median = 0.0010000000000048
util.In2:
sum = 6.415
avg = 0.06415
median = 0.063000000000017
local a = false
local users = {}
local userName = "superadmin"
for i = 1, 253 do
if i % 2 == 0 then
users[i] = "admin"
else
users[i] = "user"
end
end
users[254] = 'superadmin'
benchmark("util.In", function()
a = util.In(userName, unpack(users))
end, 1000, 100)
benchmark("util.In2", function()
a = util.In2(userName, unpack(users))
end, 1000, 100) |
Allows you to check if
thing
is amongvalues
.Using the function, we can do this:
... instead of:
... or:
Of course, the second code is faster because it performs a key lookup (which is O(1) vs. my O(n) implementation), but
util.In
is useful in contexts where performance is not so important