Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>From where I'm sitting, regular <code>for</code> loops are moderately faster than <code>for each</code> loops in the minimal case. Also, as with AS2 days, decrementing your way through a <code>for</code> loop generally provides a very minor improvement.</p> <p>But really, any slight difference here will be dwarfed by the requirements of what you actually do inside the loop. You can find operations that will work faster or slower in either case. The real answer is that neither kind of loop can be meaningfully said to be faster than the other - you must profile your code as it appears in your application.</p> <p>Sample code:</p> <pre><code>var size:Number = 10000000; var arr:Array = []; for (var i:int=0; i&lt;size; i++) { arr[i] = i; } var time:Number, o:Object; // for() time = getTimer(); for (i=0; i&lt;size; i++) { arr[i]; } trace("for test: "+(getTimer()-time)+"ms"); // for() reversed time = getTimer(); for (i=size-1; i&gt;=0; i--) { arr[i]; } trace("for reversed test: "+(getTimer()-time)+"ms"); // for..in time = getTimer(); for each(o in arr) { o; } trace("for each test: "+(getTimer()-time)+"ms"); </code></pre> <p>Results:</p> <pre><code>for test: 124ms for reversed test: 110ms for each test: 261ms </code></pre> <p>Edit: To improve the comparison, I changed the inner loops so they do nothing but access the collection value.</p> <p>Edit 2: Answers to oshyshko's comment:</p> <ol> <li>The compiler could skip the accesses in my internal loops, but it doesn't. The loops would exit two or three times faster if it was.</li> <li>The results change in the sample code you posted because in that version, the <code>for</code> loop now has an implicit type conversion. I left assignments out of my loops to avoid that. Of course one could argue that it's okay to have an extra cast in the <code>for</code> loop because "real code" would need it anyway, but to me that's just another way of saying "there's no general answer; which loop is faster depends on what you do inside your loop". Which is the answer I'm giving you. ;)</li> </ol>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POFor VS Foreach on Array performance (in AS3/Flex)
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USfenomas
    1. USfenomas
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POFor VS Foreach on Array performance (in AS3/Flex)
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUndeletion
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTDownMod
    1. CO@fenomas arr[i] may be skipped by interpreter becase the result is ignored. Also make value type strict: "o:Object" -> "o:Number". Try this: 1) var time:Number, o:Number, v:Number 2) replace "arr[i]" -> "v = arr[i]" 3) // for..in time = getTimer(); for each(o in arr) { v = o; } trace("for each test: "+(getTimer()-time)+"ms"); My results with Player 10: [trace] for test: 895ms [trace] for reversed test: 565ms [trace] for each test: 750ms BTW: how do you think, why reverse is better? Is it because "i>=0" may be faster than "i<size"?
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USoshyshko
    2. COoshyshko, see my edit. For why decrementing is faster, I assume it's because + has an internal type check since it can apply to strings as well as numbers, and ++ inherits that. But considering it adds only a few ms over 10M iterations, I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it. It's the kind of thing people are probably better off not knowing. ;)
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USfenomas
    3. COWhy did this get a downvote?
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USSasha Chedygov
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload