# Again on reaching optimal parallel scaling

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/again-on-reaching-optimal-parallel-scaling/73203>\
**Category:** Performance\
**Tags:** parallel\
**Created:** [December 16, 2021, 2:40pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/again-on-reaching-optimal-parallel-scaling/73203 "2021-12-16T14:40:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 23

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tkf](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tkf/32/17635_2.png) [@tkf](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tkf)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2021, 2:38am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/again-on-reaching-optimal-parallel-scaling/73203/23 "2021-12-18T02:38:34Z")

</div>

> [@lmiq](#):
>
> > [@tkf](#):
> >
> > or use `@floop`
> 
> I had a hard time trying to use floops in this particular case

Just be clear, this particular comment was referring to the sequential loops written with `@floop`, not the parallel loops. See the `BlockVector` speedup w.r.t `iterate` in [[RFC/ANN] FLoops.jl: fast generic for loops (foldl for humans™)](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/rfc-ann-floops-jl-fast-generic-for-loops-foldl-for-humans/37876) (Note: back then there was no parallel `@floop`). You can also manually write nested loop quite easily in this case anyway and you don’t need it to be generic over collection type. So probably I shouldn’t have shoehorned FLoops advertisement 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/again-on-reaching-optimal-parallel-scaling/73203)._