在这个网站上已经有很多性能问题了,但是在我看来,几乎所有的问题都是非常具体的,而且相当狭窄。几乎所有人都重复了避免过早优化的建议。

我们假设:

代码已经正常工作了 所选择的算法对于问题的环境已经是最优的 对代码进行了测量,并隔离了有问题的例程 所有优化的尝试也将被衡量,以确保它们不会使事情变得更糟

我在这里寻找的是策略和技巧,在一个关键算法中,当没有其他事情可做,但无论如何都要挤出最后百分之几。

理想情况下,尽量让答案与语言无关,并在适用的情况下指出所建议的策略的任何缺点。

我将添加一个带有我自己最初建议的回复,并期待Stack Overflow社区能想到的任何其他东西。


当前回答

When you get to the point that you're using efficient algorithms its a question of what you need more speed or memory. Use caching to "pay" in memory for more speed or use calculations to reduce the memory footprint. If possible (and more cost effective) throw hardware at the problem - faster CPU, more memory or HD could solve the problem faster then trying to code it. Use parallelization if possible - run part of the code on multiple threads. Use the right tool for the job. some programing languages create more efficient code, using managed code (i.e. Java/.NET) speed up development but native programing languages creates faster running code. Micro optimize. Only were applicable you can use optimized assembly to speed small pieces of code, using SSE/vector optimizations in the right places can greatly increase performance.

其他回答

When you get to the point that you're using efficient algorithms its a question of what you need more speed or memory. Use caching to "pay" in memory for more speed or use calculations to reduce the memory footprint. If possible (and more cost effective) throw hardware at the problem - faster CPU, more memory or HD could solve the problem faster then trying to code it. Use parallelization if possible - run part of the code on multiple threads. Use the right tool for the job. some programing languages create more efficient code, using managed code (i.e. Java/.NET) speed up development but native programing languages creates faster running code. Micro optimize. Only were applicable you can use optimized assembly to speed small pieces of code, using SSE/vector optimizations in the right places can greatly increase performance.

如果更好的硬件是一个选择,那么一定要去做。否则

Check you are using the best compiler and linker options. If hotspot routine in different library to frequent caller, consider moving or cloning it to the callers module. Eliminates some of the call overhead and may improve cache hits (cf how AIX links strcpy() statically into separately linked shared objects). This could of course decrease cache hits also, which is why one measure. See if there is any possibility of using a specialized version of the hotspot routine. Downside is more than one version to maintain. Look at the assembler. If you think it could be better, consider why the compiler did not figure this out, and how you could help the compiler. Consider: are you really using the best algorithm? Is it the best algorithm for your input size?

最后几个%是一个非常CPU和应用程序依赖的东西....

缓存架构不同,有些芯片有片上内存 你可以直接映射,ARM的(有时)有一个矢量 单位,SH4是一个有用的矩阵操作码。有GPU吗 也许一个着色器是可行的。TMS320非常 对循环中的分支敏感(因此分离循环和 如果可能的话,将条件移到室外)。

名单在....上但这类事情真的是 最后的手段……

编译x86,并运行Valgrind/Cachegrind对代码 进行适当的性能分析。或者德州仪器的 CCStudio有一个贴心的侧写器。然后你就知道在哪里了 关注……

建议:

Pre-compute rather than re-calculate: any loops or repeated calls that contain calculations that have a relatively limited range of inputs, consider making a lookup (array or dictionary) that contains the result of that calculation for all values in the valid range of inputs. Then use a simple lookup inside the algorithm instead. Down-sides: if few of the pre-computed values are actually used this may make matters worse, also the lookup may take significant memory. Don't use library methods: most libraries need to be written to operate correctly under a broad range of scenarios, and perform null checks on parameters, etc. By re-implementing a method you may be able to strip out a lot of logic that does not apply in the exact circumstance you are using it. Down-sides: writing additional code means more surface area for bugs. Do use library methods: to contradict myself, language libraries get written by people that are a lot smarter than you or me; odds are they did it better and faster. Do not implement it yourself unless you can actually make it faster (i.e.: always measure!) Cheat: in some cases although an exact calculation may exist for your problem, you may not need 'exact', sometimes an approximation may be 'good enough' and a lot faster in the deal. Ask yourself, does it really matter if the answer is out by 1%? 5%? even 10%? Down-sides: Well... the answer won't be exact.

不可能有这样的全面陈述,这取决于问题领域。一些可能性:

因为你没有直接指定你的应用程序是100%计算:

搜索阻塞的调用(数据库,网络硬盘,显示更新),并隔离它们和/或将它们放入线程中。

如果你使用的数据库恰好是Microsoft SQL Server:

研究nolock和rowlock指令。(在这个论坛上有一些讨论。)

如果你的应用是纯粹的计算,你可以看看我关于旋转大图像缓存优化的问题。速度的提高使我大吃一惊。

这是一个长期的尝试,但它可能提供了一个想法,特别是如果您的问题是在成像领域:代码中旋转位图

另一个是尽量避免动态内存分配。一次分配多个结构,一次释放它们。

否则,请确定最紧密的循环,并将它们与一些数据结构一起张贴在这里(无论是伪的还是非的)。