On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Gary Johnson <gwjoh...@uvm.edu> wrote: > Fair enough. Fortunately, Clojure provides so many different tools to select > from in creating you perfect recipe. ;-) > > I'm glad to hear that reducers ultimately provided you with some benefits > over your previous concurrency approach. > The one thing that seems rather odd to me though is that your group-size is > 1. I'm presuming that the function you're r/mapping must take a substantial > amount of time and resources for that to be efficient. Have you experimented > with larger group sizes to avoid too much thread swapping?
Yes, I've tried other group sizes and I get nearly no speedup over single-threaded code with the default group size (512). Group size 1 seems to be about as good as any other value i've tried. -Lee -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
