I'd love to know how much LLM was used to write this if any, and how much effort went into it as well (if it was LLM-assisted.)
Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays?
I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.
No, typically when I ask questions it's optional.
> I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.
That is why I waited half a day, and until after there were lots of comments praising the article. Still, I'm sorry if it put a damper on it for you.
Also the whole reason I asked about the source is because I think the article has a lot of merit and so I am curious if it's because the author put a lot of work in (LLM-assisted or not.) Usually when I get that feeling it's followed by a realization I'm wasting my time on something the author didn't even read closely.
But I didn't get that this time, and I'd love more examples of LLMs being used (with effort, presumably) to produce something the author could take pride in.
Actually, I take it back. I did think I was wasting my time when I noticed it was written by an LLM. But then I came back to HN an saw only praise and decided to wait a bit to see if people kept finding it useful before commenting.
I was somewhat excited by the prospect of this article being useful, but I've started to come around to my initial impression after another day. I don't really trust it.
Interesting and surprisingly, there are numerous praising comments here.
Of course I didn't verify the results I got either - I'm not about to spend hours trying to figure out if this is just slop. But I think it is.
Looks like the LLM invented somewhat different test for it than the article had. I tried again and have this with the same data structure as in the article:
That gave similar results to the article.
All the other tests still give little-to-no speedup on my machine.
TIL.
For "Array of Structs vs Struct of Arrays", using slices as fields is a good idea. If the purpose is to make fields allocated on their respective memory block, just use pointers instead.
You're right - I read the results I had wrong on that one. That one is slower, not faster, on both my M2 and on x86 machine.
> ... [1024]float64 will be always allocated on one whole page, aka, always 64-byte aligned.
if it is allocated on heap and at the start of allocated memory block.
> For "Array of Structs vs Struct of Arrays", using slices as fields is a good idea. If the purpose is to make fields allocated on their respective memory block, just use pointers instead.
I misunderstood it.
It is like row-based database vs. column-based database. Both ways have their respective advantages and disadvantages.