On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 4:50:44 AM UTC-4, Alex Harsanyi wrote: > > > I am trying to speed up an algorithm using futures, but I am getting some > unexpected results (and no real speed improvements), and I was wondering if > someone more experienced could have a look a the code and tell me what am I > doing wrong. > [...] >
I would *love* to be proven wrong on this, but I think it's rare to be able to get decent parallelization in practice using futures. You may have better results using places, but it will depend on how the amount of processing for a unit compares to the overhead of communicating with the places i.e. you may get better results with 2 places than with 8 due to place communication overhead. In your case, if it's easy for the places to input their own sets of parameters, then the place overhead may be small since I think each place would simply need to communicate its best value. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/633393c0-319c-4d7a-a587-cee2d6ab3eb4o%40googlegroups.com.
