WeSearch

Does bulk memmove speed up std:remove_if? (No.)

Arthur O’Dwyer· ·4 min read · 0 reactions · 0 comments · 28 views
TL;DR · WeSearch summary

The article discusses the performance implications of using bulk memmove in the std::remove_if algorithm. It argues that while chunking writes may seem beneficial, it can actually lead to worse performance due to increased bookkeeping and overhead. Benchmark results indicate that the traditional smooth_remove_if implementation outperforms the chunky_remove_if in various scenarios.

Key facts
About this source

Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.

Original article
Arthur O’Dwyer · Arthur O’Dwyer
Read full at Arthur O’Dwyer →

Story provenance

Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →

Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.

Record

Original publisherArthur O’Dwyer
Canonical URLhttps://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2026/05/23/chunked-remove/
Publication timeSun, 24 May 2026 05:17:13 +0000
Retrieval time2026-05-24T05:37:31.034Z
Last seen2026-05-24T05:37:31.034Z
Headline sourcePublisher (no WeSearch rewrite)
Excerpt sourcepublisher body
Excerpt methodFirst ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited.
SummaryWeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer)
Summary source textcontentText
Citation coverageSummary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL.
Clusterd2CkLYMizM6t
Cluster logicGrouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison.
Ranking reasonStory pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking.
Publisher visitYes — open original
Substitutes article?No — link-out required for full text

Rights status (four layers)

Publisher-declared
No publisher-confirmed rights record for this source yet.
Machine-readable
No source-specific machine-readable restriction detected beyond the public feed.
WeSearch interpretation
WeSearch declared handling (basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed). This is WeSearch policy, not a legal grant on the publisher's behalf.
Unknown
Retrieval and training permissions are not asserted unless the publisher confirms them.

WeSearch handling by dimension

Indexing May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? Allowed
Snippet May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? Allowed
AI summary May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? Limited
Retrieval / RAG May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? Not asserted
Model training May the content be used to train AI models? Not asserted
Commercial reuse May the content be reused commercially? Not permitted

Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.

Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand

Does bulk memmove speed up std::remove_if? (No.) This morning I was reading the umpteenth std-proposals thread proposing some variety of unstable_remove and it occurred to me that one odd thing about a swap-and-pop-based unstable_remove is that it tends to replace large swaths of contiguous removals by reversing the elements that are kept. For example (Godbolt): template<class BidirIt, class Pred> BidirIt unstable_remove_if(BidirIt first, BidirIt last, Pred pred) { while (true) { first = std::find_if(first, last, pred); if (first == last) return first; while (true) { --last; if (first == last) return first; if (!pred(*last)) break; } *first++ = std::move(*last); } } int main() { auto in234 = [](int x) { return 2 <= x && x <= 4; }; std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};…

Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Arthur O’Dwyer.

Anonymous · no account needed
Share 𝕏 Facebook Reddit LinkedIn Threads WhatsApp Bluesky Mastodon Email

Discussion

0 comments

More from Arthur O’Dwyer