循环变量 - 整数与长整数 [英] Looping variables - Integer vs Long
问题描述
我使用循环变量进行了一次测试，首先调整为整数，然后是
然后调整为Long。我发现Integer在循环时更快。我知道这是为了确保在16位的日期里，CPU的（80286）字大小是16
与整数相同。
现在使用32位CPU我会期望长得更快，因为它与CPU的字大小相同，所以不会这么大不需要在
中进行锯切，就像魔术师的助手一样计算就像一个整数一样。
那么为什么整数仍然比一个龙更快？ br />
VBA是否仍然卡在16位？
奇怪！我会预测多头更快。
你能发布你的循环代码，以便我们可以测试并看到这个奇迹吗？
< blockquote> On Fri，2005年10月28日12:43:07 +0100，Trevor Best< no **** @ localhost.invalid>写道：
我使用循环变量进行了一次测试，首先调整为整数，然后调整为Long。我发现Integer在循环时更快。我知道这是真的，在16位的日子里，CPU的（80286）字大小是一个整数相同的16位。
现在有一个32位CPU我原本期望长得快，因为它的大小与CPU的字大小相同所以不需要像魔术师一样锯切一半''像一个整数一样计算的助手会。
那么为什么整数仍然比一个龙更快呢？
VBA是否仍然卡在16位？
见
http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...98955791f1afee
在线程结束时获取一些信息令人兴奋的是，更全面的解释在那里引用
似乎已经消失了。
2005年10月28日星期五12:43:07 +0100，Trevor Best < no **** @ localhost.invalid>
写道：
我使用循环变量进行了一次测试，首先调整为整数，<然后就像龙一样。我发现Integer在循环时更快。我知道这是真的，在16位的日子里，CPU的（80286）字大小是一个整数相同的16位。
现在有一个32位CPU我原本期望长得快，因为它的大小与CPU的字大小相同所以不需要像魔术师一样锯切一半''像一个整数一样计算的助手会。
那么为什么整数仍然比一个龙更快呢？
VBA是否仍然卡在16位？
奇怪的是，我曾经从微软读过一些东西，说明
VBA将字节和整数转换为Long进行处理，所以它更多
有效地定义一切开始的方式。我原以为
很长时间才能提供更好的性能。
I did a test once using a looping variable, first dimmed as Integer,
then as Long. I found the Integer was quicker at looping. I knew this to
be true back in the 16 bit days where the CPU''s (80286) word size was 16
bits same as an integer.
Now with a 32 bit CPU I would have expected the long to be faster as
it''s the same size as the CPU''s word size so wouldn''t need sawing in
half like a magician''s assistant to calculate on like an integer would.
So why is an Integer still faster than a Long?
Is VBA still stuck in 16 bits somewhere?
Strange! I would have predicted the longs as faster.
Can you post your looping code so that we can test and see this marvel?
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:43:07 +0100, Trevor Best <no****@localhost.invalid> wrote:
I did a test once using a looping variable, first dimmed as Integer,
then as Long. I found the Integer was quicker at looping. I knew this to
be true back in the 16 bit days where the CPU''s (80286) word size was 16
bits same as an integer.
Now with a 32 bit CPU I would have expected the long to be faster as
it''s the same size as the CPU''s word size so wouldn''t need sawing in
half like a magician''s assistant to calculate on like an integer would.
So why is an Integer still faster than a Long?
Is VBA still stuck in 16 bits somewhere?
see
http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...98955791f1afee
towards the end of the thread for some information on excodes, the "fuller explanation" cited there
seems to have vanished.
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:43:07 +0100, Trevor Best <no****@localhost.invalid>
wrote:
I did a test once using a looping variable, first dimmed as Integer,
then as Long. I found the Integer was quicker at looping. I knew this to
be true back in the 16 bit days where the CPU''s (80286) word size was 16
bits same as an integer.
Now with a 32 bit CPU I would have expected the long to be faster as
it''s the same size as the CPU''s word size so wouldn''t need sawing in
half like a magician''s assistant to calculate on like an integer would.
So why is an Integer still faster than a Long?
Is VBA still stuck in 16 bits somewhere?
What''s really odd is that I read something from Microsoft once stating that
VBA converts bytes and integers to a Long for processing, so it''s more
efficient to define everything that way to start with. I would have expected
Long to give the better performance.
这篇关于循环变量 - 整数与长整数的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
