[SERVER] strings vs. code OR my MOO compiles fine and doesn't crash

• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 15:03:04 PDT
• From:
  ThwartedEfforts <abakun@scinc.com>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Because of some bookkeeping that we are trying to do on E_MOO, each line of
verb code contains a list element as it's last line which stores certain values.
Commonly, it's a list of the form:

{some object, some number, some string, etc, etc}

I can directly compare if it's more space efficient to store this as a list
or a string using value_bytes, but a hard coded list, when it appears in
verb code, is constructed by the VM on the fly from a number of opcodes (as
shown by disassemble()).  (ignore the fact that strings/comments in code are
still values; that's not how I mean it in this context).

As such, the only way to measure which is better to store this data item (as
a comment in code or as VM opcodes) is to use object_bytes() on an object
once when a verb contains toliteral()'ed strings and once with the actual
value in the code.

Store as value/opcodes:                  Store as string:

#x:test                                  #x:test
{123456789, #1, #1, #1};                 "{123456789, #1, #1, #1}";

;object_bytes(#x)                        ;object_bytes(#x)
=> 1076                                  => 1082


  Savings of 6 bytes when stored as value/opcodes over as a string.

   (as a side test:
     ;value_bytes({123456789, #1, #1, #1})
     => 48
     ;value_bytes("{123456789, #1, #1, #1}")
     => 32
      Savings of 16 bytes when stored as a string.
    )

So, the question is, has anyone done any tests that show at what point it
becomes more efficient to store values as strings rather than opcodes.  I'm
hypothsizing that and other notes (read: strings == toliteral()'ed value):
1) as lists become more nested, it's more efficient to store as strings in
   code rather than as value/opcode.
2) it's always more efficient to store a string rather than a list in a
   variable or a property (or any other place that a type of Var would be
   accepted).  This begs the question, then, if Var types are used in the
   assembled opcodes for the more basic types (INT, FLOAT, STR, OBJ) and 
   if so, why are lists constructed on the fly instead of being stored as a
   Var type if they contain all literals and no expressions (I probally know
   the answer to this one: it's easier to just assume nothing is a literal
   and that everything needs to be evaluated to get at it's value -- but
   now I'm making sense).
3) Of course, everything is stored as flat text in the db file, so I'm
   talking in terms of in memory.

Any comments?  Any tests that would prove this wrong one way or the other?

Andy...
 (...working on my spelling)

• Prev: Re: [SERVER] memory leaks or MY MOO IS 8 TIMES BIGGER THAN IT USUALLY IS
• Next: RE: Adding Prep
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows