Exactly my thoughts.Odeus37 wrote:About the "lockless hash table access" version, it would be nice to have more results with other processors.
If it's about same speed with recent CPUs, and faster with older ones (like the 6% with my q6600), you could maybe promote this version to the new default one.
There is one more parameter to consider: the size of the hash table. My above-mentioned values were for a fairly small hash size of 128 MB. With a 1024 MB hash (type "setoption name hash value 1024") I find that the standard version is slightly (1% to 2%) faster than the LOCKLESS. Complicated, isn't it?
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
Anyway, for the 6% performance gain you've found I'm quite willing to make an extra compile.
The hashfull reported by the LOCKLESS version is incorrect (meaningless), please ignore this value.Odeus37 wrote:I noticed one more difference with the "lockless hash table access" version : it fills his hash slower than the normal version.
With 512 MB hash, 4 cores, on my q6600, in 30s :
- lockless version is about 65% hashtable full
- normal version is about 97% full
Robert