On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote: > What type of improvement are you expecting to see? > > 1. A linear improvement based on throwing more cores at the problem?
Yes. > In this case you would need to use pmap to compute items in parallel. I haven't looked at pmap yet. Thanks for the clue, it might prove more useful indeed. > Your implementation appears to be single threaded. Yes, that's just a test. I guess I should have also chosen a more realistic worker function. As all clojure's persistent data collections are built on top of tree structures I thought this kind of destructuring could be both straightforward to implement and efficient. I wonder if a built-in "partition" function, aware of the internal representation of the collection data, could help here. > 2. An algorithmic improvement, like going from a DFT to an FFT? In > this case, is there any theoretical reason the algorithm does less > work? Are you making a time/memory trade off? No, although balancing the operations could potentially help with some second order effects (e.g. numerical errors). Thanks, Andrzej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
