We now examine how it is possible to put game data into a database: First we must give ourselves a level file to work with. We're not going to go into the details of the lowest level of how we utilise large data primitives such as meshes, textures, sounds and such. For now, think of assets as being the same kind of data as strings9.1.
We're going to define a level file for a game where you hunt for keys to unlock doors in order to get to the exit room. The level file will be a list of different game objects that exist in the game, and the relationships between the objects. First, we'll assume that it contains a list of rooms (some trapped, some not), with doors leading to other rooms which can be locked. It will also contain a set of pickups, some that let the player unlock doors, some that affect the player's stats (like health potions), and all the rooms have lovely textured meshes, as do all the pickups. One of the rooms is marked as the exit, and one has a player start point.
In the first step, you take all the data from the object creation script, and fit it into rows in your table. To start with, we create a table for each type of object, and a row for each instance of those obejcts. We need to invent columns as necessary, and use NULL everywhere that an instance doesn't have that attribute/column.
Once we have taken the construction script and generated tables, we find that these tables contain a lot of nulls. The nulls in the rows replace the optional content of the objects. If an object instance doesn't have a certain attributes then we replace those features with nulls. When we plug this into a database, it will handle it just fine, but storing all the nulls seems unnecessary and looks like it's wasting space. Present day database technology has moved towards keeping nulls to the point that a lot of large, sparse table databases have many more null entries than they have data. They operate on these sparsely filled tables with functional programming techniques. We, however should first see how it worked in the past with relational databases. Back when SQL was first invented there were three known stages of data normalisation (there currently are six recognised numbered normal forms, plus BoyceCodd (which is a stricter variant of third normal form), and Domain Key (which, for the most part defines a normalisation which requires using domain knowledge instead of storing data).
First normal form requires that every row be distinct and rely on the key. We haven't got any keys yet, so first we must find out what these are.
In any table, there is a set of columns that when compared to any other row, are unique. Databases guarantee that this is possible by not allowing complete duplicate rows to exist, there is always some differentiation. Because of this rule, every table has a key because every table can use all the columns at once as its primary key. For example, in the mesh table, the combination of meshID and filename is guaranteed to be unique. The same can be said for the textureID and filename in the textures table. In fact, if you use all the columns of the room table, you will find that it can be used to uniquely define that room (obviously really, as if it had the same key, it would in fact be literaly describing the same room, but twice).
Going back to the mesh table, because we can guarantee that each meshID is unique in our system, we can reduce the key down to just one or the other or meshID or filename. We'll choose the meshID as it seems sensible, but we could have chosen the filename9.2.
If we choose textureID, pickupID, and roomID as the primary keys for the other tables, we can then look at continuing on to first normal form.
First normal form can be described as making sure the tables are not sparse. We require that there be no null pointers and that there be no arrays of data in each element of data. This can be performed as a process of moving the repeats and all the optional content to other tables. Anywhere there is a null, it implies optional content. Our first fix is going to be the Pickups table, it has an optional ColourTint element. We invent a new table PickupTint, and use the primary key of the Pickup as the primary key of the new table.
two things become evident at this point, firstly that normalisation appears to create more tables and less columns in each table, secondly that there are only rows for things that matter. The latter is very interesting as when using Object-oriented approaches, we assume that objects can have attributes, so check that they are not NULL before continuing, however, if we store data like this, then we know everything is not NULL. Let's move onto the Rooms table: make a new table for the optional Pickups, Doors, Traps, and Start.
We're not done yet, the RoomDoors table has a null in it, so we add a new table that looks the same as the existing RoomDoorTable, but remove the row with a null. We can now remove the Locked column from the RoomDoor table.
Rooms Doors Locks
All done. But, first normal form also mentions no repeating groups of columns, meaning that the PickupTable is invalid as it has a pickup1 and pickup2 column. To get rid of these, we just need to move the data around like this:
Notice that now we don't have a unique primary key. This is an error in databases as they just have to have something to index with, something to identify a row against any other row. We are allowed to combine keys, and for this case we used the all column trivial key. Now, let's look at the final set of tables in 1NF:
Rooms Doors Locks
The data, in this format takes much less space in larger projects as the number of NULL entries would have only increased with increased complexity of the level file. Also, by laying out the data this way, we can add new features without having to revisit the original objects. For example, if we wanted to add monsters, normally we would not only have to add a new object for the monsters, but also add them to the room objects. In this format, all we need to do is add a new table:
And now we have information about the monster and what room it starts in without touching any of the original level data.
What we see here as we normalise our data is a tendency to add information when it becomes necessary, but at a cost of the keys that associate the data with the entity. Looking at many third party engines and APIs, you can see parallels with the results of these normalisations. It's unlikely that the people involved in the design and evolution of these engines took their data and applied database normalisation techniques, but sometimes the separations between object and componets of objects can be obvious enough that you don't need a formal technique in order to realise some positive structural changes.
In some games the entity object is not just an object that can be anything, but is instead a specific subset of the types of entity involved in the game. For example, in one game there might be an object type for the player character, and one for each major type of enemy character, and another for vehicles. This object oriented approach puts a line, invisilbe to the player, but intrusive to the developer, between classes of object and instances. It is intrusive because every time a class definition is used instead of a differing data, the amount of code required to utilise that specific entity type in a given circumstance increases. In many codebases there is the concept of the player, and the player has different attributes to other entities, such as lacking AI controls, or having player controls, or having regenerating health, or having ammo. All these different traits can be inferred from data decisions, but sometimes they are made literal through code in classes. When these differences are put in code, interfacing between different classes becomes a game of adapting, a known design pattern that should be seen as a symptom of mixed levels of specialisation in a set of classes. When developing a game, this ususally manifests as time spent writing out templated code that can operate on multiple classes rather than refactoring the classes involved into more discrete components. This could be considered wasted time as the likelyhood of other operations needing to operate on all the objects is greater than zero, and the effort to refactor into components is usually no greater than the effort to create a working templated operation.
Whereas first normal form is almost a mechanical process, 2nd Normal form and beyond become a little more investigative. It is required that the person doing the normalisation understand the data in order to determine whether parts of the data are dependent on the key and whether or not they would be better suited in a new table, or written out as a form of procedural result due to domain knowledge.
Domain key normal form is normally thought of as the last normal form, but for developing efficient data structures, it's one of the things that is best studied early and often. The term domain knowledge is preferrable when writing code as it makes more immediate sense and encourages use outside of keys and tables. Domain knowledge is the idea that data depends on other data, given information about the domain in which it resides. Domain knowledge can be as simple as knowing the collowquialism for something, such as knowing that a certain number of degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit is hot, or whether some SI unit relates to a man-made concept such as 100m/s being rather quick. These procedural solutions are present in some operating systems or applications: the progress dialogue that may say "about a minute" rather than an innaccurate and erratic seconds countdown. Hoever, domain knowledge isn't just about human interpretation of data. For example things such as boiling point, the speed of sound, of light, speed limits and average speed of traffic on a given road network, psychoacoustic properties, the boiling point of water, and how long it takes a human to react to any given visual input. All these facts may be useful in some way, but can only be put into an application if the programmer adds it specifically as procedural domain knowledge or as an attribute of a specific instance.
Domain knowledge is useful because it allows us to lose some otherwise unnecessarily stored data. It is a compiler's job to analyse the produced output of code (the abstract syntax tree) to then provide itself with data upon which it can infer and use domain knowledge about what operations can be omitted, reordered, or transformed to produce faster or cheaper assembly. Profile guided optimisation is another way of using domain knowledge, the domain being the runtime, the knowledge being the statistics of instructino coverage and order of calling. PGO is used to tune the location of instructions and hint branch predictors so that they produce even better performance based on a real world use case.
First normal form: remove repeating columns and nulls by adding new tables for optional values or one to may relationships. That is, ensure that any potentially null columns in your table are moved to their own table and use the primary table's key as their primary key. Move any repeating columns (such as item1, item2, item3) to a separate single table (item) and again use the original table's primary key as the primary key for this new table.
Second, Third, and BC (Boyce-Codd) normal form: split tables such that changes to values only affect the minimum amount of tables. Make sure that columns rely on only the table key, and also all of the table key. Look at all the columns and be sure that each one relies on all of the key and not on any other column.
Fourth normal form: ensure that your tables columns are truly dependent on each other. An example might be keeping a table of potential colours and sizes of clothing, with an entry for each colour and size combination. Most clothes come in a set of sizes, and a set of colours, and don't restrict certain colours based on size so there would be no omissions from a matrix of all the known sizes and all the known colours, instead the table should be two tables, both with the garment as primary key, with size or colour as the data. This holds for specifications, but doesn't hold for the case where an item needs to be checked for whether or not it is in stock. Not all sizes and colour combinations may be in stock, so an "in-stock" cache table would be right to have all three columns.
Fifth normal form: if the values in multiple columns are related by possibility, then remove the columns out into the separate tables of possible combinations. For example, an Ork can use simple weapons or orcish weapons, a human can use simple weapons or human weapons, if we say that Human Arthur is using a stick, then the stick doesn't need the column specifying that it is an simple weapon, but equally, if we say the Ork KruelGut is using a sword, we don't need a column specifying that he is using an orcish sword, as he cannot use a human sword and that is the only other form of sword available. In this case then we have a table that tells us what each entity is using for a weapon (we know what race each entity is in another table), and we have a table for what weapon types are available per race, and the weapon table can still have both weapontype and actual weapon. The benefit of this is that the entities only need to maintain a lower range "weapon" and not also the weapontype as the weapontype can be inferred from the weapontypes available for the race. This reduction in memory useage may come at a cost of performance, or may increase performance depending on how the data is accessed.
Sixth normal form: This is an uncommon normal form because it is one that is normally only important for keeping track of changing states and can cause an explosion in the number of tables. However, it can be useful in reducing memory usage when tracking rapidly changing independent columns of an otherwise fully normalised table. For example, if a character is otherwise fully normalised, but they need to keep track of how much money, XP, and spell points they have over time, it might be better to split out the money, XP, and spell points columns into character/time/value tables that can be separately updated without causing a whole new character record to be written purely for the sake of time stamping.
Domain/Key normal form: using domain knowledge remove columns or parts of column data because it depends on some other colum through some intrinsic quality of the domain in which the table resides. Information provided by the data may already be available in other data. For eaxmple the colloquialism of old-man is dependent on having data on the gender column and age colum, and can be inferred. Thus it doesn't need to be in a column and instead can live as a process. Equally, foreshadowing existence based processing here, a dead ork has zero health and a unhurt ork has zero damage. If we maintain a table for partially damaged orks health values then we don't need storage space undamaged ork health. This minor saving can add up to large savings when operating on multiple entities with multiple stats that can vary from a known default.
At this point we can see it is perfectly reasonable to store any highly complex data structures in a database format, even game data with its high interconnectedness and rapid design changing criteria. What is still of concern is the less logical and more binary forms of data such as material data, mesh data, audio clips and runtime integration with scripting systems and control flow.
Platform specific resources such as audio, texture, vertex or video formats are opaque to most developers, and moving towards a table oriented approach isn't going to change that. In databases, it's common to find column types of boolean, number, and string, and when building a database that can handle all the natural atomic elements of our engine, it's reasonable to assume that we can add new column types for these platform or engine intrinsics. The textureID and meshID column used in room examples could be smart pointers to resources. Creating new meshes and textures may be as simple as inserting a new row with the asset URL and keeping track of whether or not an entry has arrived in the fulfilled streaming request table or the URL to assetID table that could be populated by a behind the scenes task scheduler.
As for integration with scripting systems and using tables for logic and control flow, chapters on finite state machines, existence based processing, condition tables and hierarchical level of detail show how tables don't complicate, but instead provide opportunity to do more with fewer resources as results flow without constraint normally associated with object or entity linked data structures.
Getting your data out of a database and into your objects can appear quite daunting, but a database approach to data storage does provide a way to allow old executables to run off new data, it also allows new executables to run off old data, which is can be vital when working with other people who might need to run an earlier or later version. We saw that sometimes adding new features required nothing more than adding a new table. That's a non-intrusive modification if you are using a database, but a significant change if you're adding a new member to a class. If you're trying to keep your internal code object-oriented, then loading up tables to generate your objects isn't as easy as having your instances generated from script calls, or loading them in a binary file and doing some pointer fixup. Saving can be even more of a nightmare as when going from objects back to rows, it's hard to tell if the database needs rows added, deleted, or just modified. This is the same set of issues we normally come across when using source control. The problem with figuring out what was moved, deleted, or added when doing a three way merge.
But again, this is only true if you convert your database formatted files into explicit objects. These denormalised objects are troublesome because they are in some sense, self aware. They are aware of what their type is, and what to a large degree, what their type could be. A problem seen many times in development is where a base type needs to change because a new requirement does not fit with the original vision. Explicit objects act like the original tables before normalisation: they have a lot of nulls when features are not used. If you have a reasonable amount of object instances, this wasted space can cause problems.
You can see how an originally small object can grow to a disproportionate size, how a Car class can gain 8 wheel pointers in case it is a truck, how it can gain up to 15 passengers, optionally having lights, doors, sunroof, collision mesh, different engine, a driver base class pointer, 2 trailers, and maybe a physics model base class pointer so you can switch to different physics models when level collision is or isn't present. All these are small additions, not considered bad in themselves, but every time you check a pointer for null it can turn out either way. If you guess wrong, or the branch predictor guesses wrong, the best you can hope for is an instruction cache miss or pipeline flush before doing an action. Pipeline flushes may not be very expensive on out-of-order CPUs, but the PS3 and Xbox360 have in-order CPUs and suffer a stall when this happens.
It is generally assumed that if you bind your type into an explicit object, you also allow for runtime polymorphism. This is seen as a good thing, in that you can keep the over arching game code smaller and easier to understand. You can have a main loop that runs over all of your objects, calling: "Think", "Update", "Render", and then you loop forever. But runtime polymorphism is not only made possible by using explicit types in an Object-oriented system. In the set of tables we just normalised, the Pickups were optionally coloured. In traditional Object-oriented C++ games development we generally define the Pickups, and then either have an optional component for tinting or derive from the Pickup type and add more information to the GetColour member function. In either case it can be necessary to override the base class in some fashion. You can either add the optional tint explicitly or make a new class and change the Pickup factory to accept that some Pickups can have colour tinting. In our database normalisation, adding tinting required only adding a new table and populating it with only the Pickups that were tinted.
The more commonly seen as a bad approach (littering with pointers to optional things) is problematic in that it leads to a lot of cases where you cannot quickly find out whether an object needs special care unless you check this extended type info. For example, when rendering the Pickups, for each one in every frame, we might need to find out whether to render it in the alpha blend pass or in the solid pass. This can be an important question, and because it is asked every frame in most cases, it can add some dark matter to our profile, some cold code ineffciency.
The more commonly seen as correct approach (that is create a new type and adjust the factory), has a limitation that you cannot change a Pickup from non-tinted to tinted at runtime without some major changes to how you use Pickups in the code. This means that if an object is tinted, it remains tinted unless you have the ability to clone and swap in the new object. This seems quite strict in comparison to the pointer littering technique. You may find that you end up making all pickups tinted in the end, just because they might be tinted at some time in the future. This would mean that you would have the old code for handling the untinted pickup rotting while you assume it still works. This has been the kind of code that causes one in a thousand errors that are very hard to debug unless you get lucky.
The database approach maintains the runtime dynamicity of the pointer littering approach by allowing for the creation of tint rows at runtime post creation. It also maintains the non-littering aspect of the derived type approach because we didn't add anything to any base type to add new functionality. It's quicker than both for iterating, which in our example was binning into alpha blend render pass and solid render pass. By only iterating over the table of tints picking out which have alpha values that cause it to be binned in alpha blended, we save memory accesses as we're only traversing the list of potentially alpha blended rather than running over all the objects. All objects not in the TintedPickup set but in the Pickup set can be assumed to be solid rendered, no checking of anything required. We have one more benefit with the separation of data in that it is easier to prefetch rows for analysis when they are much simpler in layout, and we could likely have more rows in the cache at once than in either of the other methods.
The fundamental difference between the database style approach and the object-oriented approach is how the type of a Pickup is defined. Traditionally, we derive new explicit types to allow new functionality or behaviours. With databases, we add new tables and into them insert rows referencing existing entities to show new information about old information. We imply new functionality while not explicitly adding anything to the original form.
In an explicit entity system, the noun is central, the entity has to be extended with data and functions. In an implicit entity system, the adjectives are central, they refer to an entity, implying its existence by recognising it as being their operand. The entity only exists when there is something to say about it. By contrast, in an explicit entity system, you can only say something about an entity that already exists and caters for that describability.
If we go back to our level file, we see that the room table is quite explicit about itself. What we have is a simple list of rooms with all the attributes that are connected to the room written out along the columns. Although adding new features is simple enough, modification or reusing any of these separately would prove tricky.
If we change the room table into multiple adjective tables, we can see how it is possible to build it out of components without having a literal core room. We will add tables for renderable, position, and exit
With the new layout there is no core room. It is only implied through the fact that it is being rendered, and that it has a position. In fact, the last table has taken advantage of the fact that the room is now implicit, and changed from a bool representing whether the room is an exit room or not into a one column table. The entry in that table implies the room is the exit room. This will give us an immediate memory usage balance of one bool per room compared to one row per exit room. Also, it becomes slightly easier to calculate if the player is in an exit room, they simply check for that room's existence in the ExitRoom table and nothing more.
Another benefit of implicit entities is the non-intrusive linking of existing entities. In our data file, there is no space for multiple doors per room. With the pointer littering technique, having multiple doors would require an array of doors, or maybe a linked list of doors, but with the database style table of doors, we can add more rows whenever a room needs a new door.
Notice that we have to make the primary key the combination of the two rooms. If we had kept the single room ID as a primary key, then we could only have one row per room. In this case we have allowed for only one door per combination of rooms. We can guarantee in our game that a room will only have one door that leads to another room; no double doors into other rooms. Because of that, the locks also have to switch to a compound key to reference locked doors. All this is good because it means the system is extending, but by changing very little. If we decided that we did need multiple doors from one room to another we could extend it thus:
There is one sticking point here, first normal form dictates that we should build the table of Doors differently, where we have two columns of doors, it requires that we have one, but multiple rows per door.
we can choose to use this or ignore it, but only because we know that doors have two and only two rooms. A good reason to ignore it could be that we assume the door opens into the first door. Thus these two room IDs actually need to be given slightly different names, such as DoorInto, and DoorFrom.
Sometimes, like with RoomPickups, the rows in a table can be thought of as instances of objects. In RoomPickups, the rows represent an instance of a PickupType in a particular Room. This is a many to many relationship, and it can be useful in various places, even when the two types are the same, such as in the RoomDoors table.
When most programmers begin building an entity system they start by creating an entity type and an entity manager. The entity type contains information on what components are connected to it, and this implies a core entity that exists beyond what the components say about it. Adding information about what components an entity has directly into the core entity might help debugging for a little while, while the components are all still centred about entities, but it becomes cumbersome when we realise the potential of splitting and merging entities and have to move away from using an explicit entity inspector. Entities as a replacement for classes, have their place, and they can simplify the move from class central thinking to a more data-oriented approach.
Whatever you call them, be it Cosmic Base Class, Root of all Evil, Gotcha #97, or CObject, having a base class that everything derives from has pretty much been a universal failure point in large C++ projects. The language does not naturally support introspection or duck typing, so it has difficultly utilising CObjects effectively. If we have a database driven approach, the idea of a cosmic base class might make a subtle entrance right at the beginning by appearing as the entity to which all other components are adjectives about, thus not letting anything be anything other than an entity. Although component-based engines can often be found sporting an EntityID as their owner, not all require owners. Not all have only one owner. When you normalise databases, you find that you have a collection of different entity types. In our level file example we saw how the objects we started with turned into a MeshID, TextureID, RoomID, and a PickupID. We even saw the emergence through necessity of a DoorID. If we pile all these Ids into a central EntityID, the system should work fine, but it's not a necessary step. A lot of entity systems do take this approach, but as is the case with most movements, the first swing away swings too far. The balance is to be found in practical examples of data normalisation provided by the database industry.
In addition to all the other benefits of keeping your runtime data in a database style format, there is the opportunity to take advantage of structures of arrays rather than arrays of structures. SoA has been coined as a term to describe an access pattern for object data. It is okay to keep hot and cold data side by side in an SoA object as data is pulled into the cache by necessity rather than by accidental physical location.
If your animation timekey/value class resembles this:
then when you iterate over a large collection of them, all the data has to be pulled into the cache at once. If we assume that a cacheline is 128 bytes, and the size of floats is 4 bytes, the Keyframe struct is 16 bytes. This means that every time you look up a key time, you accidentally pull in four keys and all the associated keyframe data. If you are doing a binary search of a 128 key stream, that could mean you end up loading 128bytes of data and only using 4 bytes of it in up to 6 chops. If you change the data layout so that the searching takes place in one array, and the data is stored separately, then you get structures that look like this:
Doing this means that for a 128 key stream, a binary search is going to pull in at most three out of four cachelines, and the data lookup is guaranteed to only require one.
Database technology also saw this, it's called column oriented databases and the provide better throughput for data processing over traditional row oriented relational databases simply because irrelevant data is not loaded when doing column aggregations or filtering.
Now we realise that all the game data and game runtime can be implemented in a database oriented approach, there's one more interesting side effect: data as streams. Our persistent storage is a database, our runtime data is in the same format as it was on disk, what do we benefit from this? Databases can be thought of as collections of rows, or collections of columns, but there is one more way to think about the tables, they are sets. The set is the set of all possible permutations of the attributes. For example, in the case of RoomPickups, the table is defined as the set of all possible combinations of Rooms and Pickups. If a room has a Pickup, then the bit is set for that room,pickup combination. If you know that there are only N rooms and M types of Pickup, then the set can be defined as a bit field as that is N*M bits long. For most applications, using a bitfield to represent a table would be wasteful, as the set size quickly grows out of scope of any hardware, but it can be interesting to note what this means from a processing point of view. Processing a set, transforming it into another set, can be thought of as traversing the set and producing the output set, but the interesting attribute of a set is that it is unordered. An unordered list can be trivially parallel processed. There are massive benefits to be had by taking advantage of this trivialisation of parallelism wherever possible, and we normally cannot get near this because of the data layout of the object-oriented approaches.
Coming at this from another angle, graphics cards vendors have been pushing in this direction for many years, and we now need to think in this way for game logic too. We can process lots of data quickly as long as we utilise about stream processing as much as possible and use random access processing as little as possible. Stream processing in this case means to process data without having variables that are external to the current datum., thus ensuring the processes or transforms are trivially parallelisable.
When you prepare a primitive render for a graphics card, you set up constants such as the transform matrix, the texture binding, any lighting values, or which shader you want to run. When you come to run the shader, each vertex and pixel may have its own scratch pad of local variables, but they never write to globals or refer to a global scratchpad. Enforcing this, we can guarantee parallelism because the order of operations are ensured to be irrelevant. If a shader was allowed to write to globals, there would be locking, or it would become an inherently serial operation. Neither of these are good for massive core count devices like graphics cards, so that has been a self imposed limit and an important factor in their design.
Doing all processing this way, without globals / global scratchpads, gives you the rigidity of intention to highly parallelise your processing and make it easier to think about the system, inspect it, debug it, and extend it or interrupt it to hook in new features. If you know the order doesn't matter, it's very easy to rerun any tests or transforms that have caused bad state.
Apart from all the speed increases and the simplicity of extension, there is also an implicit tendency to turn out accidentally reusable solutions to problems. This is caused by the data being formatted much more rigidly, and therefore when it fits, can almost be seen as a type of duck-typing. If the data can fit a transform, a transform can act on it. Some would argue that just because the types match, doesn't mean the function will create the expected outcome, but this is simply avoidable by not reusing code you don't understand. Because the code becomes much more penetrable, it takes less time to look at what a transform is doing before committing to reusing it in your own code.
Another benefit that comes from the data being built in the same way each time, handled with transforms and always being held in the same types of container is that there is a very good chance that there are multiple intention agnostic optimisations that can be applied to every part of the code. General purpose sorting, counting, searches and spatial awareness systems can be attached to new data without calling for OOP adapters or implementing interfaces so that Strategies can run over them.
A final reason to work with data in an immutable way comes in the form of preparations for optimisation. C++, as a language, provides a lot of ways for the programmer to shoot themselves in the foot, and one of the best is that pointers to memory can cause unexpected side effects when used without caution. Consider this piece of code:
this is perfectly correct code if you just want to get a string with 99 'X's in it. However, because this is possible, memcpy has to copy one byte at a time. To speed up copying, you normally load in a lot of memory locations at once, then save them out once they are all in the cache. If your input data can be modified by your output buffer, then you have to tread very carefully. Now consider this:
The compiler can figure out that q is unaffected, and can happily unroll this loop or replace the check against q with a register value. However, looking at this code instead:
The compiler cannot tell that q is unaffected by operations on p, so it has to store p and reload q every time it checks the end of the loop. This is called aliasing, where the address of two variables that are in use are not known to be different, so to ensure correctly functioning code, the variables have to be handled as if they might be at the same address.