Robert Newson wrote:
[...]
When testing out the various versions of grep (grep, egrep, fgrep) on
Unix, I ran the timings at least twice - first to ensure that the
command and data were in memory cached and ignored that time, and
then a second (or more) time(s) for the actual timing.
P Witte wrote:
Robert Newson writes:
[If you're interested, I found egrep to be the fasted for the
grepping I do.]
I am interested. Was it you I corresponded with about a multi-file
version of grep? The current versions for the QL will only allow one
file at a time which makes it
: Re: [ql-users] efficient buffer size
Norman Dunbar wrote:
In my day it was a ZX-81 with 1KB of memory - every byte counted then !!
Despite my age this is where I started, too. But that's just history
now.
Marcel
This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may
Lau wrote:
Sound like fun. I guess it's a little warmer than home...
We have currently 38°C (100°F, 311°K) in southern Germany, it can't
possibly be much hotter than here ;-)
Q. What's the longest monosyllabic word? (Clue: ryrira yrggref)
Has it something to do with a certain small wood
I think yesterday we got 41°C in France ...
-Message d'origine-
De : Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : lundi 23 juin 2003 15:23
À : ql-users
Objet : Re: [ql-users] efficient buffer size
Lau wrote:
Sound like fun. I guess it's a little warmer than home...
We have
False : every bit was precious :)
CU
In my day it was a ZX-81 with 1KB of memory - every byte counted then !!
:o)
-
Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: 0113 289 6265
Fax: 0113 289
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Norman Dunbar wrote:
In my day it was a ZX-81 with 1KB of memory - every byte counted then !!
Despite my age this is where I started, too. But that's just history
now.
Marcel
My very first working true computer based setup I had at home was Strictly
experimental, a
How about a puzzle thread on here?
Q. What's the longest monosyllabic word? (Clue: ryrira yrggref)
We don't all speak Welsh you know :o)
You'd have a hope. As W and Y are vowels in Welsh, you can't even use
them to make your monosyllables longer!
Now where did I put Goeff's Solvit Plus...
ZN wrote:
On 6/21/2003 at 11:35 PM Lau wrote:
Back to my earlier mention of caching... hard drives and their
controllers do caching as well. I'm not certain if they do read-ahead
caching.
In short, yes.
Ta. I'll add a little proviso. The hardware can't know what the next
logical
P Witte wrote:
...
That was the significance of
2^n size no. s remarks
--- - - --- ---
x: xxx xxx xx Primer run
;)
A first time run to ensure that any caching that would be done by the first
run was done before the first run so that
P Witte wrote:
Your explanation made reminded me that a considerable amount of buffering
is already going on (the hard disk, Windoze, and Smsq). iof.load is possibly
not much more efficient under those circumstances than iob.fmul.
Yes, it's not that much of a difference anymore. In the past
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 at 00:43:09, Lau wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
My suggestion of one byte buffers was a little facetious (one of the
two words was the five vowels in order - there's one with them
reversed).
'was' - 'with'
Ah that is worth remembering as it help spell the damn word (8-)
I
On 21 Jun 2003, at 2:41, P Witte wrote:
(...)
Yes, that is understood. It is in situations where the whole file cannot be
read at once, Im thinking about. (Besides, on a multitasking machine it is
probably not very polite to grab huge buffers ;)
(...)
Oh well, if you start worrying about
P Witte wrote:
snip
As far as I know, nothing my program does should be affected by the size
of the buffer, apart from filling it in the first place. So my findings
would seem to indicate that a buffer size of between 256 bytes! and 1k are
optimal for this kind of thing. This is strange enough,
On 6/21/2003 at 11:35 PM Lau wrote:
Back to my earlier mention of caching... hard drives and their
controllers do caching as well. I'm not certain if they do read-ahead
caching.
In short, yes. Even older IDE drives with sufficient buffer memory at least
attempt to always read in the whole
Wolfgang writes:
A question: A program uses io.fstrg/iob.fmul to load files in
smaller chunks for scanning. The files could be of any size on
any media (first of all hard disks). What, theoretically, is the
smallest efficient buffer size to use? (Im thinking *speed* here.)
Eg 512
16 matches
Mail list logo
