Re: Is const really that much better than value?

Larry Ducie wrote:

I decided to test the common perception that using varying fields is faster than fixed-length fields.

I didn't think varying fields were supposed to be faster for parameter passing, but for processing. I think you would see some different results if you were doing a bunch of %trim() or %scan() operations within the subprocedures.

D) When passing a variable by value the fixed-length version was significantly faster (at least 30%) than the varying equivalent. In the case of passing a fully populated field the fixed-length version was more than twice as fast.

When the temporary varying parameter is created, the length of the fixed field's contents has to be calculated. I'm surprised that the difference is as dramatic as it is.

E) When passing by constant reference the fixed-length version was at least as fast as the varying version. In most cases it was faster.

I'd be interested to know if there is a logical reason for this, or if it was a timing fluke. I can't think of a good reason that there would be a noticeable difference.