Offline
for _, id in pairs(player(0, 'table')) do
VS
for id = 1, 32 do if player(id, 'exists') then
I personally think the second one is faster, the first one is slower.
edited 2×, last 03.06.20 11:28:40 am
Forum
CS2D
Scripts Which one is faster to be executed?
Which one is faster to be executed?
15 replies
1 
VS
I personally think the second one is faster, the first one is slower.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
function test() startTime = os.clock() for i = 1, 1000 do for _, id in pairs(player(0, 'table')) do end end print(os.clock() - startTime) startTime = os.clock() for i = 1, 1000 do for id = 1, 32 do if player(id, 'exists') then end end end print(os.clock() - startTime) end
This returns 0.001 for pairs and 0.01 for regular loop.
Difference depends on how many players are in the game.
This should be a good combination of the two:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
local players = player(0, 'table') for i = 1, #players do local p = players[i] -- player id is stored in the p variable end
SQ: Thank you 
@
Mami Tomoe: This one won't work, Thanks anyway ;p 
The Dark Shadow: what do you mean I use it quite often. Mami Tomoe: Yeah, it's totally incorrect code, that should never work by design. You should reconsider your coding path. Well the problem is solved anyway.
#player(0, 'table')is equal to 3 instead of 5 or for each 1,3,5 in this case. I hope you understand my poor explanation. Correct me If I'm wrong, please.
edited 1×, last 04.06.20 02:15:47 pm
The Dark Shadow has writtenOkay, let me explain. Let's assume we have 3 players with ID: 1,3,5. So according to your code
#player(0, 'table')is equal to 3 instead of 5 or for each 1,3,5 in this case. I hope you understand my poor explanation. Correct me If I'm wrong, please.
Yes.
This code is the fastest that you can even write in Lua, using CS2D API... it's called variable buffer. And yes..
pairs()and
ipairs()are slower.
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
local players = player(0, 'table') for index = 1, #players do local player_id = players[index] -- or just call it "id" var end
#playersin another variable too, like:
players_n, but that won't speed up the code so much.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
for i= 1, #player(0, 'table') do local id = players[i] end for _, id in pairs(player(0, 'table')) do end
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
function test() startTime = os.clock() for i = 1, 10000 do for _, id in pairs(player(0, 'table')) do end end print(os.clock() - startTime) startTime = os.clock() for i = 1, 10000 do for id = 1, 32 do if player(id, 'exists') then end end end print(os.clock() - startTime) startTime = os.clock() for i = 1, 10000 do local players = player(0, 'table') for i = 1, #players do local p = players[i] -- player id is stored in the p variable end end print(os.clock() - startTime) end
I got these results for 1 player:
This for 12:
And this for a full 32 player server:
Showing that my way was indeed, superior.
*drops mic*
edited 1×, last 04.06.20 04:56:27 pm
Gaios: You are so popular @
Mami Tomoe: Oh yeah, you are legendary 
Mami Tomoe's approach to improve it doesn't give an even bigger performance boost.I mean: This is 1 call to a very expensive CS2D method (
player(0, 'table') vs 32 calls to that method.
It should be obvious that it's faster to call it only one time.
The fact that this method returns a table and not just a single value should already make you think "this must be expensive. I should make sure to call it as few times as possible!".
(but of course methods with no or a simple return value can be expensive as well)
Using method calls in loops is bad for performance in general. Keep in mind that the method will be invoked for each iteration. It's always better to cache the values in a local variable (if you're sure that the values don't change during the loop).
@
Mami Tomoe: In your calculations you got microtime, and the actual results for your tests for 32 players are extra 28ms (for pairs() loop) and 19ms (for #players loop) server delay. So the server will freeze for those miliseconds 
. But let's assume people generally won't loop 1000 times.Summary
There's no real difference in CS2D Lua scripts bettwen for #playersand
for pairs(players).
It doesn't make any difference on small data like 32 players in ms100 loop, and fetching like 4 properties (eg. health, x, y, rot) in each loop. I got like extra 1-3ms server delay each 0.1s. CS2D Lua performance will only matter if you're about to script custom Mob engine, using eg. image()and so on where you're about to work on big data like 400 mobs on a map. Therefore you need to cache some data somehow and divide the map into chunks for example.
You should highly consider to optimize your CS2D Lua scripts when you're about to work on big data or you gonna use "always" hook, imao you should always avoid using "always" hook.
. Just an example on how we can cache stuff.edited 3×, last 04.06.20 11:12:09 pm
playerinstead by adding
local player = _G.playerat top of your scripts. That helps in performance slightly because local variables accessed faster than global variable. Of course you're not limited to
playerfunction. You can do it to any functions.
Also reducing calls to CS2D Lua API absolutely help because that's most likely your bottleneck!
1