ok i will try to provide more info on this from my stack when it happens
next.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:17 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> There used to be a barrage of pending messages generated by the IDE that
> were updating in the message box.
There used to be a barrage of pending messages generated by the IDE that
were updating in the message box. Look at the messages pane and set it to
auto-update, see if they're still there
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On
On 07/02/2018 06:59 AM, Tom Glod via use-livecode wrote:
oh yes. message box makes LC slow to a crawl..I've noticed that. i can
confirm that. Win 10 LC 9 too.
I've seen that too, especially when spewing debugging statements to the
messagebox. But not all the time, and nothing I can get a
age-
> From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 11:05 PM
> To: Ralph DiMola via use-livecode
> Cc: Mark Wieder
> Subject: Re: Sort IP List
>
> Ralph-
>
>
e-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 11:05 PM
To: Ralph DiMola via use-livecode
Cc: Mark Wieder
Subject: Re: Sort IP List
Ralph-
Not that I'm doubting your findings, but those both seem mind-bogglingly
nonsensical to me. Can you
Ralph-
Not that I'm doubting your findings, but those both seem mind-bogglingly
nonsensical to me. Can you post your test code?
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url
-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Tom Glod via use-livecode
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:51 PM
To: How to use LiveCode
Cc: Tom Glod
Subject: Re: Sort IP List
good thread you guys...code optimization questswhat fun.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Niggemann, Bernd via use
good thread you guys...code optimization questswhat fun.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Niggemann, Bernd via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Hermann,
>
> I did not see Alex's solution until after I posted. I agree that inline is
> probably always faster.
>
> And
Hermann,
I did not see Alex's solution until after I posted. I agree that inline is
probably always faster.
And after I saw Alex's post I would not have thought that one could do it that
way, thanks Alex. On top it is by far the fastest.
On the other hand sort by myFunction(each) is so
Here are some times on my system for comparison (10 random IPs):
216% - ip2dec: 463 ms
190% - ip2decpvt: 407 ms
171% - ip2dec2: 366 ms
147% - ip2dec2pvt: 314 ms
200% - sortIPList: 427 ms --> original from Bob
100% - sortIPList2: 215 ms --> Alex's inline with constants
152% - sortIPList3: 325
Remains to remark that the upcoming standard IPv6
with its text representations
(Section 2.2 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291)
will require more detailed methods,
both for number base conversion and for item sorts/cosorts
(the items are hex numbers ...)
@Bernd
Depending on the function an
if you replace ip2dec with the same functionality as Hermann's (HH) function
with
private function ip2dec2 x
set the itemdel to "."
return (item 4 of x) + (item 3 of x * 256) + (item 2 of x * 65536) + (item 1
of x * 16777216)
end ip2dec2
then the special sort via function is faster than
You all are just too darn smart. great solution.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:54 PM Alex Tweedly via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Why not just do it directly (avoid the function call) ...
>
> function sortIPList2 pIPList
> set the itemdelimiter to "."
> try
>
Alex, you win the cookie! 4 ticks for 30,000 IP addresses! If we ever meet at a
conference remind me and I will buy you beers. Not saying how namy, just more
than one. :-)
Bob S
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 16:54 , Alex Tweedly via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Why not just do it directly (avoid the
Why not just do it directly (avoid the function call) ...
function sortIPList2 pIPList
set the itemdelimiter to "."
try
sort lines of pIPList ascending numeric \
by (item 1 of each * 16777216) + \
(item 2 of each *65536) + \
(item 3 of each *256) +
Your IP addresses [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]
are the hex IP numbers converted to base 256.
So you may try the following sorting function that
converts the IPs from base 256 to base 10 (decimal).
function ip2dec x
set itemdel to "."
repeat with i=0 to 3
add (item 4-i of x)*256^i to y
Now that is weird because the sort is definitely working for me.OH
wait, you don't set the numberformat in your function. Do you set it
elsewhere, and if so, does it stick when the function is called? The sort
is definitely, no question, working for me.
I generate a list of IPs then in the
I have good news and bad news!
function sortIPList2 pIPList
set the itemdelimiter to "."
try
sort lines of pIPList ascending numeric \
by (item 1 of each + 0) & \
(item 2 of each + 0) & \
(item 3 of each + 0) & \
(item 4 of each + 0)
Yup, that would be it!
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:15 PM Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Wait I know exactly what is wrong. I have a few lines that use CIDR
> notation ie. 192.168.1.0/24 and THAT is not a number!
>
> Bob S
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 2018, at 15:13 ,
Wait I know exactly what is wrong. I have a few lines that use CIDR notation
ie. 192.168.1.0/24 and THAT is not a number!
Bob S
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 15:13 , Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Yeah mine won't run. I have:
>
> function sortIPList2 pIPList
> set the itemdelimiter to
Yeah mine won't run. I have:
function sortIPList2 pIPList
set the itemdelimiter to "."
try
sort lines of pIPList ascending numeric by (item 1 of each +0) & (item 2
of each + 0) & (item 3 of each + 0) & (item 4 of each + 0)
catch theError
breakpoint
end try
return
Oh, the above assumes setting the numberformat to "000" as you specified of
course.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:00 PM Mike Bonner wrote:
> Thx for the clue, I see what you mean.
>
> I had tried to get something similar to your value(item 1 of each +0)
> method to work and something wasn't
Thx for the clue, I see what you mean.
I had tried to get something similar to your value(item 1 of each +0)
method to work and something wasn't clicking, but after seeing yours, I
think I have it working.
sort lines of tList ascending numeric by (item 1 of each +0) & (item 2 of
each + 0) &
Yeah, no I get runtime error.
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 14:09 , Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Yes because your ampersand operator is not passing different arguements, it's
> concatenating the items together so that 10.2.245.6 produces the integer
> 1022456. But 10.22.2.6 produces
Yes because your ampersand operator is not passing different arguements, it's
concatenating the items together so that 10.2.245.6 produces the integer
1022456. But 10.22.2.6 produces 102226 which is smaller, but ought to sort
higher. Hence the 4 pass sort.
But you got me thinking, what if you
Actually, when using the multiple key sort, dont reverse the order since it
does it all in one go.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:29 AM Mike Bonner wrote:
> Ok, now i'm curious about something.. I know its possible to designate
> multiple keys to a single sort using the form..
> sort lines of plist
Ok, now i'm curious about something.. I know its possible to designate
multiple keys to a single sort using the form..
sort lines of plist by item 1 of each & item 2 of each & item 3 of
each & item
4 of each
which works fine.
But changing it to..
sort lines of plist ascending numeric by item 1
A realistic expectation of IP addresses for a given network might only be
around 16,535 (class B network) assuming every address was in use, an unlikely
scenario. I thought of way to do this for an extremely large number of
addresses by reading a large file in 1000 line chunks into 4 columns of
## was writing this when your response showed up..
Just did some tests. For reasonable size lists of IP numbers, your method
is clearly faster. As lines increase the disparity shrinks (due to 4
processings of the same lines rather than 1) until around 35000 lines at
which point positions reverse
First, your function returns a single line of numbers. With 30,000 lines of
input, yours takes 9 ticks, mine 8.
Bob S
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 08:37 , Mike Bonner via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I don't know what speed differences there might be, but another option is
> something like this..
>
I don't know what speed differences there might be, but another option is
something like this..
function ipfunc pIp
set the itemdel to "."
set the numberformat to "###" -- force length of each chunk to 3
-- append the numbers together sans "." with padded 0's using numberformat
repeat
31 matches
Mail list logo
