The article shows nicely how "every byte matters" is false. First, it starts off by talking about the cost of a new field, when the actual topic is array-of-structs vs. struct-of-arrays. Then, this:

> How much of an impact can this have? > Reading is:alive (1 byte) Across 1M Monsters

You aren't reading one byte here, you are reading 1M bytes! Of course, optimizing the access to 1M bytes is something to consider. Optimizing the access to one byte isn't.

The article is definitely worth reading IMHO, but it really needs a better headline!

▲

jayd16 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Even more so, it shows that SoA data structure means you can add fields to your 1M monsters with little impact.

	▲	notatyrannosaur 30 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> you can add fields to your 1M monsters with little impact. Great for this access pattern, but I wouldn't make a general statement like that. This is the same thing as row-oriented vs column-oriented databases, OLTP vs OLAP. SoA is weak if you are adding/removing monsters more often than accessing a single "hot" field.
	▲	celrod an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes. I think one of the big advantages of SoA is that you only pay for the fields you're currently using. If you need a field somewhere, you can add it and only pay the cost of iterating it where you need it.

▲

bronlund 6 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Every Struct Matters