Hi, Romano, Romano Paolo Tenca wrote: > > > I should have pointed out that the modified algorithm below > > splits the group number from the remainder of the line; > > therefore, some post-processing might be needed to re-attach > > the three-digit prefix to the data (unless, of course, the > > subsequent processing could use the bucket index for that > > purpose). So the time comparison may not be comletely fair. > > This is a little true for all the test we made, someone use > read/lines, someone read, someone ends with a block of line, > someone with a block of blocks. More "exact" tests should be > made with a file on disk and stop with a file on disk. >
Or else perform all tests beginning with a block of lines as obtained from input (or the previous process) and ending with a block of properly-orginazed lines. That way we'd have comparisons of only the block rearrangement, and not mix in I/O overhead (which would likely vary from box to box anyway). > > A note, this does not work as one expect under 1.2.8: > I was running under Core 2.5; since View is not (yet?) supported on Mac OS/X, I'm sticking with the version that I can actually use on all platforms I regularly use. -jn- -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
