timing differences are sort of normal because computers have lots of
other things going on:

   timespacex '+:^:(1e5 1) 2'
0.005421 12160
   timespacex '+:^:(1e5 1e4) 2'
0.003509 12160
   timespacex '+:^:(1e5 1e4) 2'
0.004045 12160

FYI,

-- 
Raul


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> performance measurements imply that it doesn't duplicate it,
>
> a =. |. 4 }. i.63
> 20 timespacex 'a { +: ^: (<63 ) 2'
> 2.168e_5 40832
> 20 timespacex ' +: ^: (a ) 2'
> 1.944e_5 38144
> 20 timespacex ' +: ^: (63 ) 2'
> 5.648e_6 1536
>
>
> these results don't differ by much, but surprised that they do differ.
>
> 200 timespacex ' +: ^: (63 3) 2'
> 1.00992e_5 12160
> 200 timespacex ' +: ^: (63 62) 2'
> 9.92639e_6 12032
>
>
>
>>F^:(5 3) y
>>does not do any calculation for the '3' ?
>
>
>> yes its efficient, simply collecting the results of each iteration
>> while the function is applied to the "last value".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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