Performance of candleParts

I noticed significant performance difference between calling an indicator and calling a candlePart on the same Quotes object.

For example, on a lengthy list (10,000 bars) the first calc below executes over 100x faster than the second calc:

var SkenderResult = quotes.GetEma(lookbackPeriods: period).Select(i => i.Ema.Null2NaN()!);

var SkenderResult = quotes.GetBaseQuote(CandlePart.HLC3);

We should check what causes such performance issue with GetBaseQuote() method - compared to other GetXXX() methods?

Results from GetBaseQuote() are so slow to calculate and return, that I rather commented them out from my validation tests for HL2, OHLC3 and others. Perhaps I don’t call the method the way I should?

Here is the link to my validation tests with your library: https://github.com/mihakralj/QuanTAlib/blob/dev/Tests/Validations/Trends/Skender.cs

[mihakralj]

They are more similar than you think, and the calc should follow the same logic…

T3 is a clump of 6 EMAs:

Ema1 = Ema (Close);
Ema2 = Ema (Ema1);
Ema3 = Ema (Ema2);
Ema4 = Ema (Ema3);
Ema5 = Ema (Ema4);
Ema6 = Ema (Ema5);
T3 = –(a*a*a) * Ema6 + (3*a*a + 3*a*a*a) * Ema5 + (–6*a*a – 3*a – 3*a*a*a) * Ema4 + (1 + 3*a + a*a*a + 3*a*a) * Ema3

TRIX is a clump of 3 EMAs:

Ema1 = Ema (Close);
Ema2 = Ema (Ema1);
Ema3 = Ema (Ema2);
TRIX = (Ema3-Ema3[1]) / Ema3[1]

[mihakralj]

No, check lines 41, 46, 51, 56, and 61 in https://github.com/DaveSkender/Stock.Indicators/blob/main/src/s-z/T3/T3.Series.cs

In line 61 you are warming up ema6 for SIX periods, instead of warming up all EMAs within a single period.

Looking at Tillson’s implementation, all of his T3 EMAs are primed after a single period bars. In your implementation you need a period to prime the first e1, another period to prime e2, another period for e3 and so on till e6. Six times longer, and that becomes a big issue when period is large.

Imagine T3(200) - Tillson’s implementation generates first valid result on 201st bar. Yours needs 1200 bars just for a warm-up …