There is also integrated rank support (a specific category special code) for 
dyad -:"n , especially when n=1 (ie matching rows of tables has been made 
particularly efficient).  

That said, it's probably worth doing a few performance tests on medium-sized 
data sets to compare the performance of -:"1 to that of *./ . ~: rather than 
making a substitution on the blind and potentially wasting a 24 hour run (or 
more) on the larger, production inputs.

-Dan

Please excuse typos; sent from a phone.

> On Aug 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I'd want to see some detailed reference on this issue (~.!.0 on non-numeric
> arrays) before I'd want to blow another day or longer trying to reproduce
> the problem with that change.
> 
> Alternatively, I'd want to get into the C implementation and find how this
> could happen. That maybe should be done as a theoretical exercise
> (understanding how the algorithm works and how it can fail) than as a
> practical exercise.
> 
> Please also keep in mind that I have not eliminated hardware flaws from the
> plausible cause list. Memory corruption (or things equivalent to memory
> corruption, such as an intermittently failing logic component) is an
> all-too-likely possibility.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Raul
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> ~.!.0 as I understand it uses a different algorithm from ~. even on
>> nonnumerics, and might be worth trying.
>> 
>> I am sure that ~.!.0 is much faster than ~. of floating-point arrays of
>> rank > 1.  I think ~. is OK when the rank is 1.
>> 
>> Henry Rich
>> 
>> 
>>> On 8/19/2014 2:11 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please include the current time in the sequence of timestamps. The code
>>> was
>>> still running at the point in time where I posted my email.
>>> 
>>> That said, at this point, my attempt to interrupt succeeded, and I have
>>> found the line of code which was stalled:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to