I believe I covered this test with its relative results. Fortunately the system was slow enough to cause differences in the tests.
If you are coming up with different (shorter) times, then you're missing the point. All tests need to be done on the same system. The fastest one was still the DIM A(50000). My 1 cent. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Piers Angliss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:51 AM Subject: RE: [U2] REMOVE results as promised. > Not that it seems to matter these days but both this method and the <..-1> > notation (which is an implicit form of the same thing) could be said to be > needlessly evaluating whether or not A is null 49,999 times. > > An alternative would be : > > A = 1 > FOR I = 2 TO 50000 > A := @VM : I > NEXT I > > I also found (many years ago) that :- > > A = '' > FOR I = 1 TO 50000 > A:= @VM : I > NEXT I > DEL A<1,1,0> or A = A[2,999999] > > was faster than repeatedly testing whether A was null > > > Piers > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dzevad Dizdar > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 05:27 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [U2] REMOVE results as promised. > > > Hi Mark, > > There is another fast method to consider > > A="" > FOR I=1 TO 50000 > IF A = "" THEN > A := I > END ELSE > A := @VM : I > END > NEXT I > > It will take less then 1 second to finish on our system. > Dzevad > ------- > u2-users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
