Carl: > > In my experience, you can speed things up with more memory. > > Or, perhaps, by using less?
When files get to above a certain size (depending on lots of variables), it can make a lot of sense not to loft them straight into series, so something like: file: open/lines %myfile.txt may well be faster than: file: read/lines %myfile.txt (Unless, of course, %myfile.txt is is being accessed via FTP or some other distance access method). It also, in Louis's case, probably makes a great deal of sense to sort as you suggest: build an index to the file and then sort the index. That way, the 'parse in the original need only be done once; and the volume of data being physically moved around inside the sort is well reduced. You've also neatly bypassed the need for a sort comparison function as your method is intrinsically stable. But when it comes to working out what is actually faster none of us has much of an internal model of how Rebol goes about doing things. All we can do is speculate and experiment. If Louis has the time to try some of these suggestions for improvement and the let us know, it'd be a valuable start for understanding how to throw large chunks of data at Rebol. And he might even get his sort down to under twenty minutes. Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
