Great news,
can you post your new code that we can test it also?
Many thanks Peter
George Sexton schrieb:
The measurement was calculated by taking the median reading of 10 consecutive executions.
Just for your edification they were:
New Code:
7373ms 7395ms 7383ms 7370ms 7384ms 7385ms 7395ms 7376ms 7378ms 7393ms
Median: 7383.5ms
Old code:
8561ms 8560ms 8771ms 8774ms 8771ms 8767ms 8860ms 8775ms 8775ms 8782ms
Median: 8772.5ms
Difference: 1389ms ~ 15.8% improved
My mistake for not wanting to bore the list with minutiae.
George Sexton
MH Software, Inc.
http://www.mhsoftware.com/
Voice: 303 438 9585
-----Original Message-----
The original code you submitted looks quite bad so I don't trust your measurements at all, sorry.
Rémy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
