> Way back in this thread you implied that you had extremely large FILES > containing FIXED SIZE RECORDS, from which you needed > to FILTER DUPLICATE records based on the value of a FIXED SIZE KEY > field. this is mostly correct. the data is state and state associated data on the fringe. hence the name of the algorithm: fringe search. states (keys) are fixed size. associated data (due to the operator sequence) is variable size. i didn't post that here. i sent you (george) an email directly wed at 9:49 am according to my sent email box. getting this piece of the algorithm to go faster, less memory, both? awesome.
my actual test file (just checked) is 633 mb. it is data from perhaps halfway through a search. the fringe for a 5x5 grows by about 9x each successive fringe. i say about 9x because as the fringes grow, the amount of redundancy will increase. when i hit the limits of my hardware and patience with this algorithm i was at 90% redundancy but that fringe file was huge. i still hadn't produced an answer for the problem and decided i needed to get the code to run in parallel. that was about 5 years ago. last spring i started reworking my old stuff to work with places and ran out of enthusiasm until about 2 weeks ago. > Doesn't work for 6x6? Well 36 6-bit values fit neatly into 216 bits > (27 bytes). the guy (korf) who did the paper on the 24 puzzle has attempted the 6x6 and failed. notice in the 24 puzzle paper that he was unable to solve one of those 10 sample problems. 5x5 is what i'm after. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
