On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 20:43, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 22:30, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did some further tests this time with some tuple deforming. Again,
> it does seem that v9 is slower than v8.
>
> Graphs attached
>
> Looking at profiles, I don't really see any obvious reason as to why
> this is. I'm very much inclined to just pursue the v8 patch (separate
> Result Cache node) and just drop the v9 idea altogether.
Nobody raised any objections, so I'll start taking a more serious look
at the v8 version (the patch with the separate Result Cache node).
One thing that I had planned to come back to about now is the name
"Result Cache". I admit to not thinking for too long on the best name
and always thought it was something to come back to later when there's
some actual code to debate a better name for. "Result Cache" was
always a bit of a placeholder name.
Some other names that I'd thought of were:
"MRU Hash"
"MRU Cache"
"Parameterized Tuple Cache" (bit long)
"Parameterized Cache"
"Parameterized MRU Cache"
I know Robert had shown some interest in using a different name. It
would be nice to settle on something most people are happy with soon.
David