Geoff Howard wrote, On 28/03/2003 18.13:
At 12:05 PM 3/28/2003, you wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote, On 28/03/2003 17.58:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
+---------------+---------------+----------+ | original | optimized | diff | +---------------+---------------+----------+ | | | | memory | 65 Mb | 40 Mb | *-30%* | time | 51 sec | 103 sec | *-51%* | | | | | +---------------+---------------+----------+
Umm, is the original supposed to be 65MB/103 sec ?
Oops! 8-)
And while we're at it, isn't that more like a 38/39% improvement in memory?
It depends on what you calculate it.
20 is 30% of 65.
65*30/100~=20
So it uses 30% less memory of the original one. But yes, the original one uses 38/39% more memory than the fast one.
It's always the same thing: if A is 33% less than B (one third less), then B is 50% more than A (double more) ;-)
Anyway, it's much faster, ok? ;-P
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------