You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There's a huge performance discrepancy between calling my_vec.map x-> x.do_something 10
in the IDE and in the CLI. The discrepancy on my data is on the order of 5 seconds in the CLI vs. 20 minutes in the IDE.
Note that this only happens with lambdas (both -> and _) but not with curried methods,
I.e. the same lambda extracted to a module level method and passed to map like here.my_fun is fast in the IDE.
Because of this effect, my assumption is that the instrumentation framework triggers for nodes inside the lambda.
Steps to Reproduce
Map a semi-involved lambda over a large vector.
Expected Result
Same speed in CLI and IDE
Actual Result
Significant slowdown in the IDE
Enso Version
New one :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
General Summary
There's a huge performance discrepancy between calling
my_vec.map x-> x.do_something 10
in the IDE and in the CLI. The discrepancy on my data is on the order of 5 seconds in the CLI vs. 20 minutes in the IDE.
Note that this only happens with lambdas (both
->
and_
) but not with curried methods,I.e. the same lambda extracted to a module level method and passed to
map
likehere.my_fun
is fast in the IDE.Because of this effect, my assumption is that the instrumentation framework triggers for nodes inside the lambda.
Steps to Reproduce
Map a semi-involved lambda over a large vector.
Expected Result
Same speed in CLI and IDE
Actual Result
Significant slowdown in the IDE
Enso Version
New one :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: