Re: [q-lang-users] Re: Optimizations and tweaks

[<Dr....@t-...>]

Tim Haynes wrote:
> I've just got some initial benchmark results - it's still good, it's
> still obviously quicker than the naiive baseline (faster about 3.5x as
> often as naiive is faster than mine). And when it's faster, it's by a
> factor of 2-3, while I've never seen it being over 12% slower at worst.

Great! If you have some benchmark results or other comments ready to be 
added to the script, just send them to me.

> Graphs of times taken show a couple of curves much lower than the naiive
> algorithm, too.

Just remember that all of this is achieved at the expense of O(N log N) 
memory requirements (whereas the naive algorithm uses only O(1) data). ;-)

> Neat :)

I agree. :)

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/~ag