I updated the code in the live session and it's working much better now.

Or at least, that part is.

I'm also getting interface errors from 2!:0 and I am having to work around
that issue also. :/ (This issue, I think, represents kernel memory
fragmentation - I guess linux is not tuned for processes which hold huge
amounts of memory making system calls...)

Thanks,

-- 
Raul



On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to