Monte Goulding wrote:
We can't change the fact that RB has a faster substring searcher than Rev
I am glad this comment has appeared. Not that I want to judge the tool I use on a single test but because I felt doubts of being part of something where those deeply involved didn't come up out with clear statements like this.
I don't think anyone here was claiming that Rev outperforms all other tools in all tasks.
But by the same token, if the ostensible reason for the comparison holds up we can look forward to a great many other relevant measurements appearing on that page as the evaluation for the project at hand continues.
Any evaluation of tools that focuses solely on one task will likely yield suboptimal results, esp. if the obvious choices for that task, C or Assembler, remain ommitted from the evaluation.
Sarah Reichelt wrote:
In a real world application, who cares whether a particular routine takes 100 ms or 500 ms
If you are contemplating building big, complex solutions this does matter. Sure, when you start out you don't notice the difference. As time goes on and routines call others that call others .... these time differences multiply.
Indeed, but in practical terms it depends on the specifics of the app. Just how big is the difference, and how frequently is the function called? There is ultimately a point of diminishing returns for most optimization efforts.
And of course when speed is really critical, as long as 3GLs are an option chances are you'd get much better results using the industry standard 3GL, C. You can do that in an external and still get the productivity benefits of a 4GL for the other 90% of the development cycle.
But as of this morning this doesn't matter: Thanks to Brian Yennie's post, Rev either retook the lead or is so close the differences are negligible (depends how the testing will turn out on Yav's machine).
Here's the post in case you missed it:
--------------------------------------------------- On guard! Another Rev entry!
Notes:
1) I went back to building the mini-index of first letter hints from words, and caching the index for future searches
2) I took advantage of the caseSensitive property, which noticeably speeds up offset()
2a) I noted that the position in the full text has to be at least 2x-1 that of the 1 character index
3) I used a quick array to keep track of two-word combos and quickly eliminate any line which has a non-existent one in it
4) I used lock/unlock screen because the screen was previously being updated 6 times instead of once (once for each put into a field, including the timing mechanism).
My benchmarks are:
HARDWARE: iBook 500Mhz - has been benching at pretty close to 50% speed of Chris' test machine
FIRST RUN (which creates cached index): 130-135 ticks
ADDITIONAL RUNS (with cached index): 58-62 ticks
Cut those in half, and we would have 65-68 ticks on the first round and 29-31 on each additional, which would actually be faster than the RB bench!
Of course only Chris can tell us how they run on his end =).
##########
local shortFindList, isWord, textDigest, tTime
on mouseUp local tMatchList, sMS, fn, stList, shortFind, w, w0, c
## if you want to force refresh of index if (the optionKey is "down") then put empty into textDigest
set cursor to watch
put the milliseconds into sMS
lock screen put empty into tTime
## use URL syntax for faster file loading
put "./TargetText.txt" into fn
put url ("file:"&fn) into tMatchList put "./SearchTextList.txt" into fn
put url ("file:"&fn) into stListput timeit(sMS,"Load Data") into sMS -- stripping quotes from both sets saves problems with single quotes -- or with quoted strings being treated as a word
replace quote with empty in stList put lower(tMatchList) into tLowerMatchList replace quote with empty in tLowerMatchList
put md5Digest(tMatchList) into tDigest
if (tDigest <> textDigest) then
put empty into shortFindList
repeat for each word w in tLowerMatchList
put char 1 of w into c
put c after shortFindList
put TRUE into isWord[w]
put TRUE into isWord[w0&w]
put w into w0
end repeat
put tDigest into textDigest
end ifset the caseSensitive to TRUE
repeat for each line inLine in stList
put empty into shortFind
put lower(inLine) into inLineLower
put 0 into i
put empty into w0
repeat for each word w in inLineLower
if not isWord[w0&w] then
put empty into shortFind
exit repeat
end if
put char 1 of w after shortFind
put w into w0
end repeat
if (shortFind is empty) then next repeat
put offset(shortFind, shortFindList) into x
if (x > 0) then
if (offset(inLineLower, tLowerMatchList, x*2-1) > 0) then
put inLine & return after MatchList
end if
end if
end repeat
put timeit(sMS, "Check Matches") into sMS
put MatchList into fld "TheResults"
put stList into fld "SearchTextList"
put tMatchList into fld "TargetText"
put timeit(sMS,"Display All") into sMS
put tTime&cr after fld "SpeedRecords"
unlock screen
end mouseUp_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
--------------------------------------------
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
