[crest]

My best improvment was just bit-interleaving both axes of a 2x32bit integer coordinate (aka z-curve). I obtained factor ~100x (yes factor not percent) throughput improvement over locality in only one dimension. All it took was ~10 lines of bit twiddling. The runtime went from a bit above 300ms to slightly less then 3ms.

[hinkley]

End to end gets weird. I was asked to look at an admin page, nobody could figure out why it was 30s. Literally the first thing I tried got it under 4 and the second down to three. It was pulling the same list of rows twice, applying two filters and then looking at the intersection. I changed the signature to send the list as input instead of the query constraints. Then I changed them to avoid the intersect.

If you would have asked me to bet on which one would have had the bigger impact I would have split the difference.

My second favorite was similar. Two functions making a call instead of sharing the answer. Profiler said 10% cumulative. I removed half. Instead of 5% I got 20%. Which just demonstrates how much data a profiler cannot show you.

[throw-the-towel]

I'm wondering how do you folk even come up with this kind of optimisations.

[hinkley]

Sheer stubbornness.

Profilers lie and some more than most. I’ve gotten 3x from code with a perfectly rectangular profile output.

Part of it comes down to a trick game devs steal from finance: give each task a budget and keep it to the budget even if it’s not the tall tent pole.

You should not spend 10% of your response time on telemetry and logging combined. Yet I pulled 10% TTFB out of just the logging and telemetry code on a project. It was a frog boiling situation. Every new epic used the new code and determining the cumulative cost wasn’t easy.