Related
Most often, I do wounder how best to make my applications have optimal performance. How to optimize and identify functions/methods that are more resource intensive than the others and make necessary adjustments. In software development irrespective of language I believe that, there should some ways of finding out how the processor/network resources are being used by different parts of my codes. I will illustrate what I mean using the simplest example I can think of: I have background on Java, Python and PHP and feel more comfortable working on linux environment. Please feel free to advice me using any of these languages you are comfortable with:
In Javascript one can comfortably test and assign a value to a variable by doing:
//METHOD 1:
if(true){
console.log("It will always be true");
}else{
console.log("You can never see me");
}
//METHOD 2:
var print;
if(true){
print="It will always be true";
}else{
print="You can never see me";
}
console.log(print);
//METHOD 3:
console.log((true)? "It will always be true" : "You can never see me");
If different people were to be asked which of these methods will perform faster than the other. I am sure that different individuals will come up with different ideas. But I need a more reliable way to know about resource usage both on desktop and mobile applications. Thanks.
First of all, Debugging is done when you know the exact bug or wrong functionality.
It is done for functional testing i.e. to check defects in application.
For performance, profilers are used to find out resource intensive methods. they will provide heavy modules/functions/DB queries etc. so that after analysis you can tune and improve your system performance.If after modification some defect arises then you debugger can be used to pinpoint and correct the issue.
There are many opensource as well as paid profilers for java(I am saying java because you pasted javascript code).
Please have a look at them and use them to tune your system.
IMHO downvoting was for 2 reasons bad english and very basic question.
In the examples you gave, it simply doesn't matter. That's like asking which is faster, a snail or a worm BUT, if by
"profiling" you mean "measurements of time taken by functions", and if by
"debugging performance problem" you mean "the bug is that time is being spent unnecessarily, and I need to find out why",
then I strongly agree with the premise of your question.
Debugging works much better.
A performance problem consists of excess time being spent for unnecessary reasons.
The way to find it is by breaking into the execution at random times, which will naturally gravitate toward whatever is taking the most time.
The more time the problem takes, the more likely the break is to land in the problem.
Just do it several times, and each time look carefully at the program's state, to understand why it's doing whatever it's doing.
If you see it doing something that can be avoided, and you see it doing it on more than one break, you've found a performance problem.
Fix it and observe the speedup.
Then repeat the process, because what was the next biggest problem is now the biggest one.
The speedups multiply together.
Here's an example where the time goes from 2700us to 1800, then to 1500, 1300, 440, 170, and finally 3.7us. None of the speedups were all that big as fractions of the original time, but in the aggregate, they were stunning.
This is very much different from measuring.
In measuring, the first thing that happens is you assume numerical accuracy is important, so you assume you either need lots of samples or you have to instrument the code to measure time precisely.
As if numerical accuracy helps to find the problem.
This false assumption entered programmers' consciousness around 1982, when GPROF appeared.
In measuring, you assume the problem can be localized to a function, when in fact you need to see all of what's happening at a point in time to know if it can be avoided.
IMHO, the best profilers sample the stack, on wall-clock time, and report for each line of code that appears on samples, the percent of samples it appears on.
However, even these profilers don't tell you the context that you can get by simply looking carefully at individual stack samples, and data as well.
(Other forms of eye-candy have the same problem: call-graph, hot-path, flame-graph, etc.)
I have an old standards document that has gone through several iterations and has its roots back in the ColdFusion 5 days. It contains a number of admonitions, primarily for performance, that I'm not so sure are still valid.
Do any of these still apply in ColdFusion MX 8? Do they really make that much difference in performance?
Use compare() or compareNoCase() instead of is not when comparing strings
Don't use evaluate() unless there is no other way to write your code
Don't use iif()
Always use struct.key or struct[key] instead of structFind(struct,key)
Don't use incrementValue()
I agree with Tomalak's thoughts on premature optimization. Compare is not as readable as "eq."
That being said there is a great article on the Adobe Developer Center about ColdFusion Performance: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/coldfusion/articles/coldfusion_performance.html
Compare()/CompareNoCase(): comparing case-insensitively is more expensive in Java, too. I'd say this still holds true.
Don't use evaluate(): Absolutely - unless there's no way around it. Most of the time, there is.
Don't use Iif(): I can't say much about this one. I don't use it anyway because the whole DE() stuff that comes with it sucks so much.
struct.key over StructFind(struct,key): I'd suspect that internally both use the same Java method to get a struct item. StructFind() is just one more function call on the stack. I've never used it, since I have no idea what benefit it would bring. I guess it's around for backwards compatibility only.
IncrementValue(): I've never used that one. I mean, it's 16 characters and does not even increment the variable in-place. Which would have been the only excuse for it's existence.
Some of the concerns fall in the "premature optimization" corner, IMHO. Personal preference or coding style apart, I would only start to care about some of the subtleties in a heavy inner loop that bogs down the app.
For instance, if you do not need a case-insensitive string compare, it makes no sense using CompareNoCase(). But I'd say 99.9% of the time the actual performance difference is negligible. Sure you can write a loop that times 100000 iterations of different operations and you'd find they perform differently. But in real-world situations these academic differences rarely make any measurable impact.
Coldfusion MX 8 is several times faster than MX 7 from all accounts. When it came out, I read many opinions that simply upgrading for the performance boost without changing a line of code was well worth it... It was worth it. With the gains in processing power, memory availability, generally, you can do a lot more with less optimized code.
Does this mean we should stop caring and write whatever? No. Chances are where we take the most shortcuts, we'll have to grow the system the most there.
Finding that find line between enough engineering and not over-engineering a solution is a fine balance. There's a quote there by Knuth I believe that says "Premature optimizations is the root of all evil"
For me, I try to base it on:
how much it will be used,
how expensive that will be across my expected user base,
how critical/central it is to everything,
how often I may be coming back to the code to extend it into other areas
The more that these types of ideas lie in the "probably or one way or another I will", I pay more attention to it. If it needs to be readable and a small performance hit results, it's the better way to go for sustainability of the code.
Otherwise, I let items fight for my attention while I solve and build things of real(er) value.
The single biggest favour we can do ourselves is use a framework with any project, no matter how small and do the small things right from the beginning.
That way there is no sense of dread in going back to work on a system that was originally meant to be a temporary hack but never got re-factored.
I'm working on a board game algorithm where a large tree is traversed using recursion, however, it's not behaving as expected. How do I handle this and what are you experiences with these situations?
To make things worse, it's using alpha-beta pruning which means entire parts of the tree are never visited, as well that it simply stops recursion when certain conditions are met. I can't change the search-depth to a lower number either, because while it's deterministic, the outcome does vary by how deep is searched and it may behave as expected at a lower search-depth (and it does).
Now, I'm not gonna ask you "where is the problem in my code?" but I am looking for general tips, tools, visualizations, anything to debug code like this. Personally, I'm developing in C#, but any and all tools are welcome. Although I think that this may be most applicable to imperative languages.
Logging. Log in your code extensively. In my experience, logging is THE solution for these types of problems. when it's hard to figure out what your code is doing, logging it extensively is a very good solution, as it lets you output from within your code what the internal state is; it's really not a perfect solution, but as far as I've seen, it works better than using any other method.
One thing I have done in the past is to format your logs to reflect the recursion depth. So you may do a new indention for every recurse, or another of some other delimiter. Then make a debug dll that logs everything you need to know about a each iteration. Between the two, you should be able to read the execution path and hopefully tell whats wrong.
I would normally unit-test such algorithms with one or more predefined datasets that have well-defined outcomes. I would typically make several such tests in increasing order of complexity.
If you insist on debugging, it is sometimes useful to doctor the code with statements that check for a given value, so you can attach a breakpoint at that time and place in the code:
if ( depth = X && item.id = 32) {
// Breakpoint here
}
Maybe you could convert the recursion into an iteration with an explicit stack for the parameters. Testing is easier in this way because you can directly log values, access the stack and don't have to pass data/variables in each self-evaluation or prevent them from falling out of scope.
I once had a similar problem when I was developing an AI algorithm to play a Tetris game. After trying many things a loosing a LOT of hours in reading my own logs and debugging and stepping in and out of functions what worked out for me was to code a fast visualizer and test my code with FIXED input.
So, if time is not a problem and you really want to understand what is going on, get a fixed board state and SEE what your program is doing with the data using a mix of debug logs/output and some sort of your own tools that shows information on each step.
Once you find a board state that gives you this problem, try to pin-point the function(s) where it starts and then you will be in a position to fix it.
I know what a pain this can be. At my job, we are currently working with a 3rd party application that basically behaves as a black box, so we have to devise some interesting debugging techniques to help us work around issues.
When I was taking a compiler theory course in college, we used a software library to visualize our trees; this might help you as well, as it could help you see what the tree looks like. In fact, you could build yourself a WinForms/WPF application to dump the contents of your tree into a TreeView control--it's messy, but it'll get the job done.
You might want to consider some kind of debug output, too. I know you mentioned that your tree is large, but perhaps debug statements or breaks at key point during execution that you're having trouble visualizing would lend you a hand.
Bear in mind, too, that intelligent debugging using Visual Studio can work wonders. It's tough to see how state is changing across multiple breaks, but Visual Studio 2010 should actually help with this.
Unfortunately, it's not particularly easy to help you debug without further information. Have you identified the first depth at which it starts to break? Does it continue to break with higher search depths? You might want to evaluate your working cases and try to determine how it's different.
Since you say that the traversal is not working as expected, I assume you have some idea of where things may go wrong. Then inspect the code to verify that you have not overlooked something basic.
After that I suggest you set up some simple unit tests. If they pass, then keep adding tests until they fail. If they fail, then reduce the tests until they either pass or are as simple as they can be. That should help you pinpoint the problems.
If you want to debug as well, I suggest you employ conditional breakpoints. Visual Studio lets you modify breakpoints, so you can set conditions on when the breakpoint should be triggered. That can reduce the number of iterations you need to look at.
I would start by instrumenting the function(s). At each recursive call log the data structures and any other info that will be useful in helping you identify the problem.
Print out the dump along with the source code then get away from the computer and have a nice paper-based debugging session over a cup of coffee.
Start from the base case where you've mentioned if else statements and then try to channelize your thinking by writing it down on pen and paper + printing the values on console when the first few instances of recursive functions are generated with values.
The motto is to find the correct trend between the values you print and match them with those values you wrote on paper in the initial few steps of your recursive algorithm.
I am currently working for a client who are petrified of changing lousy un-testable and un-maintainable code because of "performance reasons". It is clear that there are many misconceptions running rife and reasons are not understood, but merely followed with blind faith.
One such anti-pattern I have come across is the need to mark as many classes as possible as sealed internal...
*RE-Edit: I see marking everything as sealed internal (in C#) as a premature optimisation.*
I am wondering what are some of the other performance anti-patterns people may be aware of or come across?
The biggest performance anti-pattern I have come across is:
Not measuring performance before and
after the changes.
Collecting performance data will show if a certain technique was successful or not. Not doing so will result in pretty useless activities, because someone has the "feeling" of increased performance when nothing at all has changed.
The elephant in the room: Focusing on implementation-level micro-optimization instead of on better algorithms.
Variable re-use.
I used to do this all the time figuring I was saving a few cycles on the declaration and lowering memory footprint. These savings were of minuscule value compared with how unruly it made the code to debug, especially if I ended up moving a code block around and the assumptions about starting values changed.
Premature performance optimizations comes to mind. I tend to avoid performance optimizations at all costs and when I decide I do need them I pass the issue around to my collegues several rounds trying to make sure we put the obfu... eh optimization in the right place.
One that I've run into was throwing hardware at seriously broken code, in an attempt to make it fast enough, sort of the converse of Jeff Atwood's article mentioned in Rulas' comment. I'm not talking about the difference between speeding up a sort that uses a basic, correct algorithm by running it on faster hardware vs. using an optimized algorithm. I'm talking about using a not obviously correct home brewed O(n^3) algorithm when a O(n log n) algorithm is in the standard library. There's also things like hand coding routines because the programmer doesn't know what's in the standard library. That one's very frustrating.
Using design patterns just to have them used.
Using #defines instead of functions to avoid the penalty of a function call.
I've seen code where expansions of defines turned out to generate huge and really slow code. Of course it was impossible to debug as well. Inline functions is the way to do this, but they should be used with care as well.
I've seen code where independent tests has been converted into bits in a word that can be used in a switch statement. Switch can be really fast, but when people turn a series of independent tests into a bitmask and starts writing some 256 optimized special cases they'd better have a very good benchmark proving that this gives a performance gain. It's really a pain from maintenance point of view and treating the different tests independently makes the code much smaller which is also important for performance.
Lack of clear program structure is the biggest code-sin of them all. Convoluted logic that is believed to be fast almost never is.
Do not refactor or optimize while writing your code. It is extremely important not to try to optimize your code before you finish it.
Julian Birch once told me:
"Yes but how many years of running the application does it actually take to make up for the time spent by developers doing it?"
He was referring to the cumulative amount of time saved during each transaction by an optimisation that would take a given amount of time to implement.
Wise words from the old sage... I often think of this advice when considering doing a funky optimisation. You can extend the same notion a little further by considering how much developer time is being spent dealing with the code in its present state versus how much time is saved by the users. You could even weight the time by hourly rate of the developer versus the user if you wanted.
Of course, sometimes its impossible to measure, for example, if an e-commerce application takes 1 second longer to respond you will loose some small % money from users getting bored during that 1 second. To make up that one second you need to implement and maintain optimised code. The optimisation impacts gross profit positively, and net profit negatively, so its much harder to balance. You could try - with good stats.
Exploiting your programming language. Things like using exception handling instead of if/else just because in PLSnakish 1.4 it's faster. Guess what? Chances are it's not faster at all and that two years from now someone maintaining your code will get really angry with you because you obfuscated the code and made it run much slower, because in PLSnakish 1.8 the language maintainers fixed the problem and now if/else is 10 times faster than using exception handling tricks. Work with your programming language and framework!
Changing more than one variable at a time. This drives me absolutely bonkers! How can you determine the impact of a change on a system when more than one thing's been changed?
Related to this, making changes that are not warranted by observations. Why add faster/more CPUs if the process isn't CPU bound?
General solutions.
Just because a given pattern/technology performs better in one circumstance does not mean it does in another.
StringBuilder overuse in .Net is a frequent example of this one.
Once I had a former client call me asking for any advice I had on speeding up their apps.
He seemed to expect me to say things like "check X, then check Y, then check Z", in other words, to provide expert guesses.
I replied that you have to diagnose the problem. My guesses might be wrong less often than someone else's, but they would still be wrong, and therefore disappointing.
I don't think he understood.
Some developers believe a fast-but-incorrect solution is sometimes preferable to a slow-but-correct one. So they will ignore various boundary conditions or situations that "will never happen" or "won't matter" in production.
This is never a good idea. Solutions always need to be "correct".
You may need to adjust your definition of "correct" depending upon the situation. What is important is that you know/define exactly what you want the result to be for any condition, and that the code gives those results.
Michael A Jackson gives two rules for optimizing performance:
Don't do it.
(experts only) Don't do it yet.
If people are worried about performance, tell 'em to make it real - what is good performance and how do you test for it? Then if your code doesn't perform up to their standards, at least it's something the code writer and the application user agree on.
If people are worried about non-performance costs of rewriting ossified code (for example, the time sink) then present your estimates and demonstrate that it can be done in the schedule. Assuming it can.
I believe it is a common myth that super lean code "close to the metal" is more performant than an elegant domain model.
This was apparently de-bunked by the creator/lead developer of DirectX, who re-wrote the c++ version in C# with massive improvements. [source required]
Appending to an array using (for example) push_back() in C++ STL, ~= in D, etc. when you know how big the array is supposed to be ahead of time and can pre-allocate it.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
If something is making a single-thread program take, say, 10 times as long as it should, you could run a profiler on it. You could also just halt it with a "pause" button, and you'll see exactly what it's doing.
Even if it's only 10% slower than it should be, if you halt it more times, before long you'll see it repeatedly doing the unnecessary thing. Usually the problem is a function call somewhere in the middle of the stack that isn't really needed. This doesn't measure the problem, but it sure does find it.
Edit: The objections mostly assume that you only take 1 sample. If you're serious, take 10. Any line of code causing some percentage of wastage, like 40%, will appear on the stack on that fraction of samples, on average. Bottlenecks (in single-thread code) can't hide from it.
EDIT: To show what I mean, many objections are of the form "there aren't enough samples, so what you see could be entirely spurious" - vague ideas about chance. But if something of any recognizable description, not just being in a routine or the routine being active, is in effect for 30% of the time, then the probability of seeing it on any given sample is 30%.
Then suppose only 10 samples are taken. The number of times the problem will be seen in 10 samples follows a binomial distribution, and the probability of seeing it 0 times is .028. The probability of seeing it 1 time is .121. For 2 times, the probability is .233, and for 3 times it is .267, after which it falls off. Since the probability of seeing it less than two times is .028 + .121 = .139, that means the probability of seeing it two or more times is 1 - .139 = .861. The general rule is if you see something you could fix on two or more samples, it is worth fixing.
In this case, the chance of seeing it in 10 samples is 86%. If you're in the 14% who don't see it, just take more samples until you do. (If the number of samples is increased to 20, the chance of seeing it two or more times increases to more than 99%.) So it hasn't been precisely measured, but it has been precisely found, and it's important to understand that it could easily be something that a profiler could not actually find, such as something involving the state of the data, not the program counter.
On Java servers it's always been a neat trick to do 2-3 quick Ctrl-Breakss in a row and get 2-3 threaddumps of all running threads. Simply looking at where all the threads "are" may extremely quickly pinpoint where your performance problems are.
This technique can reveal more performance problems in 2 minutes than any other technique I know of.
Because sometimes it works, and sometimes it gives you completely wrong answers. A profiler has a far better record of finding the right answer, and it usually gets there faster.
Doing this manually can't really be called "quick" or "effective", but there are several profiling tools which do this automatically; also known as statistical profiling.
Callstack sampling is a very useful technique for profiling, especially when looking at a large, complicated codebase that could be spending its time in any number of places. It has the advantage of measuring the CPU's usage by wall-clock time, which is what matters for interactivity, and getting callstacks with each sample lets you see why a function is being called. I use it a lot, but I use automated tools for it, such as Luke Stackwalker and OProfile and various hardware-vendor-supplied things.
The reason I prefer automated tools over manual sampling for the work I do is statistical power. Grabbing ten samples by hand is fine when you've got one function taking up 40% of runtime, because on average you'll get four samples in it, and always at least one. But you need more samples when you have a flat profile, with hundreds of leaf functions, none taking more than 1.5% of the runtime.
Say you have a lake with many different kinds of fish. If 40% of the fish in the lake are salmon (and 60% "everything else"), then you only need to catch ten fish to know there's a lot of salmon in the lake. But if you have hundreds of different species of fish, and each species is individually no more than 1%, you'll need to catch a lot more than ten fish to be able to say "this lake is 0.8% salmon and 0.6% trout."
Similarly in the games I work on, there are several major systems each of which call dozens of functions in hundreds of different entities, and all of this happens 60 times a second. Some of those functions' time funnels into common operations (like malloc), but most of it doesn't, and in any case there's no single leaf that occupies more than 1000 μs per frame.
I can look at the trunk functions and see, "we're spending 10% of our time on collision", but that's not very helpful: I need to know exactly where in collision, so I know which functions to squeeze. Just "do less collision" only gets you so far, especially when it means throwing out features. I'd rather know "we're spending an average 600 μs/frame on cache misses in the narrow phase of the octree because the magic missile moves so fast and touches lots of cells," because then I can track down the exact fix: either a better tree, or slower missiles.
Manual sampling would be fine if there were a big 20% lump in, say, stricmp, but with our profiles that's not the case. Instead I have hundreds of functions that I need to get from, say, 0.6% of frame to 0.4% of frame. I need to shave 10 μs off every 50 μs function that is called 300 times per second. To get that kind of precision, I need more samples.
But at heart what Luke Stackwalker does is what you describe: every millisecond or so, it halts the program and records the callstack (including the precise instruction and line number of the IP). Some programs just need tens of thousands of samples to be usefully profiled.
(We've talked about this before, of course, but I figured this was a good place to summarize the debate.)
There's a difference between things that programmers actually do, and things that they recommend others do.
I know of lots of programmers (myself included) that actually use this method. It only really helps to find the most obvious of performance problems, but it's quick and dirty and it works.
But I wouldn't really tell other programmers to do it, because it would take me too long to explain all the caveats. It's far too easy to make an inaccurate conclusion based on this method, and there are many areas where it just doesn't work at all. (for example, that method doesn't reveal any code that is triggered by user input).
So just like using lie detectors in court, or the "goto" statement, we just don't recommend that you do it, even though they all have their uses.
I'm surprised by the religous tone on both sides.
Profiling is great, and certainly is a more refined and precise when you can do it. Sometimes you can't, and it's nice to have a trusty back-up. The pause technique is like the manual screwdriver you use when your power tool is too far away or the bateries have run-down.
Here is a short true story. An application (kind of a batch proccessing task) had been running fine in production for six months, suddenly the operators are calling developers because it is going "too slow". They aren't going to let us attach a sampling profiler in production! You have to work with the tools already installed. Without stopping the production process, just using Process Explorer, (which operators had already installed on the machine) we could see a snapshot of a thread's stack. You can glance at the top of the stack, dismiss it with the enter key and get another snapshot with another mouse click. You can easily get a sample every second or so.
It doesn't take long to see if the top of the stack is most often in the database client library DLL (waiting on the database), or in another system DLL (waiting for a system operation), or actually in some method of the application itself. In this case, if I remember right, we quickly noticed that 8 times out of 10 the application was in a system DLL file call reading or writing a network file. Sure enough recent "upgrades" had changed the performance characteristics of a file share. Without a quick and dirty and (system administrator sanctioned) approach to see what the application was doing in production, we would have spent far more time trying to measure the issue, than correcting the issue.
On the other hand, when performance requirements move beyond "good enough" to really pushing the envelope, a profiler becomes essential so that you can try to shave cycles from all of your closely-tied top-ten or twenty hot spots. Even if you are just trying to hold to a moderate performance requirement durring a project, when you can get the right tools lined-up to help you measure and test, and even get them integrated into your automated test process it can be fantasticly helpful.
But when the power is out (so to speak) and the batteries are dead, it's nice know how to use that manual screwdriver.
So the direct answer: Know what you can learn from halting the program, but don't be afraid of precision tools either. Most importantly know which jobs call for which tools.
Hitting the pause button during the execution of a program in "debug" mode might not provide the right data to perform any performance optimizations. To put it bluntly, it is a crude form of profiling.
If you must avoid using a profiler, a better bet is to use a logger, and then apply a slowdown factor to "guesstimate" where the real problem is. Profilers however, are better tools for guesstimating.
The reason why hitting the pause button in debug mode, may not give a real picture of application behavior is because debuggers introduce additional executable code that can slowdown certain parts of the application. One can refer to Mike Stall's blog post on possible reasons for application slowdown in a debugging environment. The post sheds light on certain reasons like too many breakpoints,creation of exception objects, unoptimized code etc. The part about unoptimized code is important - the "debug" mode will result in a lot of optimizations (usually code in-lining and re-ordering) being thrown out of the window, to enable the debug host (the process running your code) and the IDE to synchronize code execution. Therefore, hitting pause repeatedly in "debug" mode might be a bad idea.
If we take the question "Why isn't it better known?" then the answer is going to be subjective. Presumably the reason why it is not better known is because profiling provides a long term solution rather than a current problem solution. It isn't effective for multi-threaded applications and isn't effective for applications like games which spend a significant portion of its time rendering.
Furthermore, in single threaded applications if you have a method that you expect to consume the most run time, and you want to reduce the run-time of all other methods then it is going to be harder to determine which secondary methods to focus your efforts upon first.
Your process for profiling is an acceptable method that can and does work, but profiling provides you with more information and has the benefit of showing you more detailed performance improvements and regressions.
If you have well instrumented code then you can examine more than just the how long a particular method; you can see all the methods.
With profiling:
You can then rerun your scenario after each change to determine the degree of performance improvement/regression.
You can profile the code on different hardware configurations to determine if your production hardware is going to be sufficient.
You can profile the code under load and stress testing scenarios to determine how the volume of information impacts performance
You can make it easier for junior developers to visualise the impacts of their changes to your code because they can re-profile the code in six months time while you're off at the beach or the pub, or both. Beach-pub, ftw.
Profiling is given more weight because enterprise code should always have some degree of profiling because of the benefits it gives to the organisation of an extended period of time. The more important the code the more profiling and testing you do.
Your approach is valid and is another item is the toolbox of the developer. It just gets outweighed by profiling.
Sampling profilers are only useful when
You are monitoring a runtime with a small number of threads. Preferably one.
The call stack depth of each thread is relatively small (to reduce the incredible overhead in collecting a sample).
You are only concerned about wall clock time and not other meters or resource bottlenecks.
You have not instrumented the code for management and monitoring purposes (hence the stack dump requests)
You mistakenly believe removing a stack frame is an effective performance improvement strategy whether the inherent costs (excluding callees) are practically zero or not
You can't be bothered to learn how to apply software performance engineering day-to-day in your job
....
Stack trace snapshots only allow you to see stroboscopic x-rays of your application. You may require more accumulated knowledge which a profiler may give you.
The trick is knowing your tools well and choose the best for the job at hand.
These must be some trivial examples that you are working with to get useful results with your method. I can't think of a project where profiling was useful (by whatever method) that would have gotten decent results with your "quick and effective" method. The time it takes to start and stop some applications already puts your assertion of "quick" in question.
Again, with non-trivial programs the method you advocate is useless.
EDIT:
Regarding "why isn't it better known"?
In my experience code reviews avoid poor quality code and algorithms, and profiling would find these as well. If you wish to continue with your method that is great - but I think for most of the professional community this is so far down on the list of things to try that it will never get positive reinforcement as a good use of time.
It appears to be quite inaccurate with small sample sets and to get large sample sets would take lots of time that would have been better spent with other useful activities.
What if the program is in production and being used at the same time by paying clients or colleagues. A profiler allows you to observe without interferring (as much, because of course it will have a little hit too as per the Heisenberg principle).
Profiling can also give you much richer and more detailed accurate reports. This will be quicker in the long run.
EDIT 2008/11/25: OK, Vineet's response has finally made me see what the issue is here. Better late than never.
Somehow the idea got loose in the land that performance problems are found by measuring performance. That is confusing means with ends. Somehow I avoided this by single-stepping entire programs long ago. I did not berate myself for slowing it down to human speed. I was trying to see if it was doing wrong or unnecessary things. That's how to make software fast - find and remove unnecessary operations.
Nobody has the patience for single-stepping these days, but the next best thing is to pick a number of cycles at random and ask what their reasons are. (That's what the call stack can often tell you.) If a good percentage of them don't have good reasons, you can do something about it.
It's harder these days, what with threading and asynchrony, but that's how I tune software - by finding unnecessary cycles. Not by seeing how fast it is - I do that at the end.
Here's why sampling the call stack cannot give a wrong answer, and why not many samples are needed.
During the interval of interest, when the program is taking more time than you would like, the call stack exists continuously, even when you're not sampling it.
If an instruction I is on the call stack for fraction P(I) of that time, removing it from the program, if you could, would save exactly that much. If this isn't obvious, give it a bit of thought.
If the instruction shows up on M = 2 or more samples, out of N, its P(I) is approximately M/N, and is definitely significant.
The only way you can fail to see the instruction is to magically time all your samples for when the instruction is not on the call stack. The simple fact that it is present for a fraction of the time is what exposes it to your probes.
So the process of performance tuning is a simple matter of picking off instructions (mostly function call instructions) that raise their heads by turning up on multiple samples of the call stack. Those are the tall trees in the forest.
Notice that we don't have to care about the call graph, or how long functions take, or how many times they are called, or recursion.
I'm against obfuscation, not against profilers. They give you lots of statistics, but most don't give P(I), and most users don't realize that that's what matters.
You can talk about forests and trees, but for any performance problem that you can fix by modifying code, you need to modify instructions, specifically instructions with high P(I). So you need to know where those are, preferably without playing Sherlock Holmes. Stack sampling tells you exactly where they are.
This technique is harder to employ in multi-thread, event-driven, or systems in production. That's where profilers, if they would report P(I), could really help.
Stepping through code is great for seeing the nitty-gritty details and troubleshooting algorithms. It's like looking at a tree really up close and following each vein of bark and branch individually.
Profiling lets you see the big picture, and quickly identify trouble points -- like taking a step backwards and looking at the whole forest and noticing the tallest trees. By sorting your function calls by length of execution time, you can quickly identify the areas that are the trouble points.
I used this method for Commodore 64 BASIC many years ago. It is surprising how well it works.
I've typically used it on real-time programs that were overrunning their timeslice. You can't manually stop and restart code that has to run 60 times every second.
I've also used it to track down the bottleneck in a compiler I had written. You wouldn't want to try to break such a program manually, because you really have no way of knowing if you are breaking at the spot where the bottlenck is, or just at the spot after the bottleneck when the OS is allowed back in to stop it. Also, what if the major bottleneck is something you can't do anything about, but you'd like to get rid of all the other largeish bottlenecks in the system? How to you prioritize which bottlenecks to attack first, when you don't have good data on where they all are, and what their relative impact each is?
The larger your program gets, the more useful a profiler will be. If you need to optimize a program which contains thousands of conditional branches, a profiler can be indispensible. Feed in your largest sample of test data, and when it's done import the profiling data into Excel. Then you check your assumptions about likely hot spots against the actual data. There are always surprises.