Very cool. Thanks! :D On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dean Landolt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Rey Bango <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good question, Dean. This was presented to me this weekend by someone who >> needs to work with the data as is. Not sure why but that's what they have to >> work with. >> > > > Oh, I'd assumed this data was mocked because of the glaring bug in the > original getChord function (the second for loop `i` clobbering the first) > that would surface immediately on a set with more than one chord nested. > > > >> So regardless of the structure, what *I'm* personally interested in at >> this moment is helping them optimize the traversal of the data. Can you >> help? >> > > > Sure. I'd think the fastest traversal would be no traversal at all, so if > they're in a position to keep an index around it'd drastically improve > querying. Of course, if they can keep index state around they could probably > just restructure the data as per my previous email. So if they can't index > or rewrite, sadly, I don't think there's any way to get around the loops -- > the best you could do is use the fastest looping technique available, a > while loop from the tail: `i=array.length; while(i--) {}`. > > Here's a gist demonstrates both an index and optimized looping: > https://gist.github.com/1229524 > > > > > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
