Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:04:54 07/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2003 at 02:58:47, Gerd Isenberg wrote: <snipped> >Fast cache is a limited resource. Short arrays/tables are in general more cache >friendly. If code/data is not in first or second level cache there may be delays >from about 140 ns (Memory latency) up to 400ns in worst case, to get data from >main memory via cache into the processor. How can I know if code/data is in the first or second level cache? I have no idea about the size of the code in my computer. I can know the size of the exe file or the size of the source code but it tells me no information about the size of specific functions in the computer. <snipped> >>Where do you have 16 4K in this thread? > >16*4KByte pagesize == 64KByte if you use 16-bits from hashkey, like Bas. >I use 12 Bits as index and need a 4KByte table, one page. > >Gerd I use until today the simple way of checking all the irreversible moves. considering the fact that I have a slow searcher I do not think that it is important to change it(I consider tactical positions as more important for playing strength than quiet positions when there were a lot of reversible moves and I also believe that normal test suites cannot help me to detect the real progress so I prefer to keep the simple way) I was interested in the subject because I thought that it may help me to do better design of other arrays or better design of the code. If I understand correctly you claim that there is no difference between 4 kbytes and smaller arrays when you have random-accesses of the array but there may be a difference between 4 kbytes and bigger arrays unless the access is not random. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.