Reputation: 83
If to run following code
using System;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
using System.Diagnostics;
public class E
{
public double V { get; set; }
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
E e = new E();
Func<double> f = () => e.V;
Expression expr = Expression.Property(Expression.Constant(e), "V");
Expression<Func<double>> exp = Expression.Lambda<Func<double>>(expr);
Func<double> ef = exp.Compile();
e.V = 123;
int attempts = 5;
for (int j = 0; j < attempts; j++)
{
int c = 100000;
double[] r1 = new double[c];
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < c; i++)
{
r1[i] = f();
}
sw.Stop();
double[] r2 = new double[c];
Stopwatch sw2 = new Stopwatch();
sw2.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < c; i++)
{
r2[i] = ef();
}
sw2.Stop();
double rat = (double)sw.ElapsedTicks / sw2.ElapsedTicks;
Console.WriteLine(rat);
}
}
}
then it turns out that compiled expression is much slower than just a lambda. Is it expected result? Is it possible to rewrite to expression somehow to get equivalent code but which will work faster?
Upvotes: 1
Views: 804
Reputation: 772
your delegate f is created with a compiled generated class with a field e of type E and access value like this :
return <Target>.e.V;
In the second case (expression), delegate is created using constant instruction that use a Closure as target with an array of object where e is the first element. Code can be represented like this :
return ((E)<Target>.Constants[0]).V;
That's why performance is better for first case.
note : with "Watch window" in Visual Studio, when you debug the code, you can inspect "f.Target" and "ef.Target" to confirm it.
Upvotes: 4