Believe me, I understood that. But this particular performance measure is rather like measuring the performance of tires sliding sideways (as opposed to rolling) in a parking lot while carrying several hundred pounds of meatloaf.
In other words, it's not something I would feel comfortable optimizing for, though I can sort of almost see some sort of vague connection to real applications if I do not think about it too much. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > Even if Raul wouldn't consider them meaningful for some reason I don't > understand it seems he should still understand that they are performance > measurements? That I am creating a loop over a piece of code to measure the > performance of this piece of code? /Erling > > > On 2017-10-02 17:01, Don Guinn wrote: >> >> How many times do you have to be told that these kinds of measurements and >> meaningless? >> >> On Oct 2, 2017 8:57 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> How many times do I have to tell that I do this to measure performance? >>> /Erling >>> >>> On 2017-10-02 16:39, Raul Miller wrote: >>> >>>> Generally speaking, you want to push the large arrays into J's >>>> primitives as much as possible. Going the other direction, like you're >>>> doing here (using relatively expensive functions at rank 0 on >>>> relatively large arrays) is mostly going to bog down. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
