### 1. all() and any() routines

- Posted by Ad Rienks <Ad_Rienks at COMPUSERVE.COM> Mar 20, 1997
- 627 views

Jef Zeitlin provided us with some very nice routines, all() and any(). global function all(object o) if atom(o) then return o -- that is the letter, not 0(ZERO) end if for i = 1 to length(o) do if not o[i] then return 0 -- this *is* a ZERO end if end for return 1 end function -- all() -------------------------------------------------------- global function any(object o) if atom(o) then return o end if for i = 1 to length(o) do if i[o] then return 1 end if end for return 0 end function -- any -------------------------------------------------------- I've been checking these out, but it seems to me you can speed them up (at least in a lot of cases), by replacing the loops 'for..do /if..then... end if /end for' with a simple 'if find(0, o) then...' and 'if find(1, o) then...'. The sequence o, that is used inside the routines, is of the same length as the sequence that is passed to the routines, but it only contains 0's(FALSE) and 1's(TRUE). It seems to me that reading the sequence using 'find' is more elegant and probably quicker than using a loop inside a loop. I tested my suggested improvement to find the square of 99999 in a 100000-element sequence of squares. (Pretty useless again). In this case it took my Pentium 75 with 8Mb 0.16 seconds, whereas Jef's code took twice as much. But when I began testing it with 200000 and 300000 elements, the speed difference decreased, I think maybe because most of the time was spend writing to and reading from the hard disk. Can someone with more RAM test this? Sincerely yours, Ad. PS. I wander how long this message will take to get to the Listserver. Last time it took 2 whole days. I'm posting this one now on March 20. In the USA (Westcoast) it should be just 3 a.m.

### 2. Re: all() and any() routines

- Posted by "Lucius L. Hilley III" <luciuslhilleyiii at JUNO.COM> Mar 21, 1997
- 602 views
- Last edited Mar 22, 1997

>Ad. > >PS. I wander how long this message will take to get to the Listserver. >Last >time it took 2 whole days. I'm posting this one now on March 20. In >the USA >(Westcoast) it should be just 3 a.m. > I recieved the message this morning. March 21 9:13 am EST EastCoast.

### 3. Re: all() and any() routines

- Posted by Arthur Adamson <euclid at HORANDATA.NET> Mar 22, 1997
- 614 views

--=====================_859055508==_ >Poster: Ad Rienks <Ad_Rienks at COMPUSERVE.COM> >Subject: all() and any() routines >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Jef Zeitlin provided us with some very nice routines, all() and any(). >But when I began testing it with 200000 and 300000 elements, the speed >difference decreased, I think maybe because most of the time was spend >writing to and reading from the hard disk. >Can someone with more RAM test this? I ran some tests. The results follow. My conclusion, it all depends. If someone can direct me to a fine grained timer, I will re-run. The 200000 results suffer from coarse timer resolution. Art Adamson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --=====================_859055508==_ The following data shows relative speed for Mr Zeitlin's loop based any and all functions vs Mr. Rienk's find based any and all which was offered as hopefully faster. My answer, they are about the same with some exceptions....asssuming I have implemented them properly. My versions follow in the include file I used. The 200000 versions results suffer from lack of timer resolution. Is there a better timer available for Euphoria, I can easily retest. Art Adamson, euclid at horandata.net INCLUDE FILE: --2 versions of any and all for speed comparison tests --Art Adamson, euclid at horandata.net --loop version by Zeitlin global function allloop(object o) if atom(o) then return o end if for i = 1 to length(o) by 1 do if not o[i] then return 0 end if end for return 1 end function --allloop() global function anyloop(object o) if atom(o) then return o end if for i = 1 to length(o) by 1 do if o[i] then return 1 end if end for return 0 end function --anyloop() --find version by Rienks global function all(object o) if atom(o) then return o end if if find(0,o) then return 0 else return 1 end if end function --all() global function any(object o) if atom(o) then return o end if if find(1,o) then return 1 else return 0 end if end function --any() END INCLUDE FILE ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Test of loop vs find anyall.e for FLOATS and sequence length :200000 Time for all/any with-find...with-loop are shown thus, 0.66...0.65 Using a pentium, 100/120 MHZ, 30 Meg Ram... **Test of All******************************************** The sequence is filled with 3.22345.....,,,,,,,.......find...loop Using all(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.11 Repeat above test to test cache effects Using all(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.16...0.11 Using all(s > 2.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.17...0.22 Using all(s > 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.11...0.11 Using all(s >=4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.16...0.11 Using all(s <= 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.17...0.16 **Test of Any******************************************** Using any(s > 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.17...0.22 Using any(s < 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.11...0.16 Using any(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.11...0.22 Using any(s = 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.11...0.16 Using any(s >= 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 0.17...0.16 Using any(s <= 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.16..,0.11 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Test of loop vs find anyall.e for FLOATS and sequence length :2000000 Time for all/any with-find...with-loop are shown thus, 0.66...0.65 Using a pentium, 100/120 MHZ, 30 Meg Ram... **Test of All******************************************** The sequence is filled with 3.22345.....,,,,,,,.......find...loop Using all(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.37 Repeat above test to test cache effects Using all(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.32...1.26 Using all(s > 2.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.48...1.98 Using all(s > 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.32...1.32 Using all(s >=4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.26...1.32 Using all(s <= 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.43...1.98 **Test of Any******************************************** Using any(s > 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.43...2.03 Using any(s < 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.26...1.32 Using any(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.43...2.03 Using any(s = 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.43...1.98 Using any(s >= 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 1.48...1.98 Using any(s <= 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.26..,1.32 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Test of loop vs find anyall.e for FLOATS and sequence length :4000000 Time for all/any with-find...with-loop are shown thus, 0.66...0.65 Using a pentium, 100/120 MHZ, 30 Meg Ram... **Test of All******************************************** The sequence is filled with 3.22345.....,,,,,,,.......find...loop Using all(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 3.41 Repeat above test to test cache effects Using all(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.58...2.58 Using all(s > 2.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 2.91...4.01 Using all(s > 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.64...2.58 Using all(s >=4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.58...2.64 Using all(s <= 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 2.91...3.96 **Test of Any******************************************** Using any(s > 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.91...4.01 Using any(s < 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 2.58...2.58 Using any(s < 2.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.91...4.12 Using any(s = 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.91...3.96 Using any(s >= 4.22345), the answer is: No, time is: 2.91...3.95 Using any(s <= 4.22345), the answer is: Yes, time is: 2.58..,2.64 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Test of loop vs find anyall.e for INTEGERS and sequence length :200000 Time for all/any with-find...with-loop are shown thus, 0.66...0.65 Using a pentium, 100/120 MHZ, 30 Meg Ram... **Test of All******************************************** The sequence is filled with 3 .....,,,,,,,.......find...loop Using all(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.06 Repeat above test to test cache effects Using all(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.05...0.06 Using all(s > 2 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.05...0.16 Using all(s > 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.06...0.05 Using all(s >=4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.06...0.05 Using all(s <= 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.06...0.16 **Test of Any******************************************** Using any(s > 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.06...0.11 Using any(s < 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.05...0.06 Using any(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.11...0.11 Using any(s = 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.05...0.17 Using any(s >= 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.05...0.11 Using any(s <= 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.06..,0.05 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Test of loop vs find anyall.e for INTEGERS and sequence length :2000000 Time for all/any with-find...with-loop are shown thus, 0.66...0.65 Using a pentium, 100/120 MHZ, 30 Meg Ram... **Test of All******************************************** The sequence is filled with 3 .....,,,,,,,.......find...loop Using all(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.66 Repeat above test to test cache effects Using all(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.55...0.55 Using all(s > 2 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.71...1.27 Using all(s > 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.6...0.55 Using all(s >=4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.55...0.55 Using all(s <= 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.71...1.27 **Test of Any******************************************** Using any(s > 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.71...1.26 Using any(s < 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.55...0.55 Using any(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.72...1.26 Using any(s = 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.71...1.27 Using any(s >= 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 0.71...1.26 Using any(s <= 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 0.55..,0.55 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Test of loop vs find anyall.e for INTEGERS and sequence length :4000000 Time for all/any with-find...with-loop are shown thus, 0.66...0.65 Using a pentium, 100/120 MHZ, 30 Meg Ram... **Test of All******************************************** The sequence is filled with 3 .....,,,,,,,.......find...loop Using all(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.76 Repeat above test to test cache effects Using all(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.16...1.1 Using all(s > 2 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.42...2.53 Using all(s > 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.15...1.1 Using all(s >=4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.16...1.1 Using all(s <= 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.42...2.53 **Test of Any******************************************** Using any(s > 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.43...2.47 Using any(s < 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.15...1.1 Using any(s < 2 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.43...2.53 Using any(s = 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.48...2.48 Using any(s >= 4 ), the answer is: No, time is: 1.42...2.48 Using any(s <= 4 ), the answer is: Yes, time is: 1.15..,1.1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --=====================_859055508==_ Arthur P. Adamson, The Engine Man, euclid at mail.horandata.net --=====================_859055508==_--

### 4. Re: all() and any() routines

- Posted by Robert Craig <robert_craig at COMPUSERVE.COM> Mar 22, 1997
- 615 views

Art Adamson writes: > Is there a better timer available for Euphoria, I can easily retest. In Euphoria version 1.5 you can call tick_rate(100) to get a resolution of .01 seconds in the time() function. Normally the resoultion is about .055 seconds, or tick_rate(18.2). You might want to go as high as (say) tick_rate(500) for even better resolution. Beyond 1000 the machine will likely be spending a few percent of its time handling clock interrupts, and you might see an (ignorable) suggestion from Windows 95 that you should run the program in pure DOS 7.0 mode. Of course the low-tech solution to poor timer resolution is just to run the benchmark code in a loop (say) 100 times, and then divide the resulting times by 100. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software

### 5. Re: all() and any() routines

- Posted by Arthur Adamson <euclid at HORANDATA.NET> Mar 22, 1997
- 618 views
- Last edited Mar 23, 1997

>In Euphoria version 1.5 you can call tick_rate(100) to get >a resolution of .01 seconds in the time() function. I'm ready to buy, tell me how. Bye Art Arthur P. Adamson, The Engine Man, euclid at mail.horandata.net

### 6. Re: all() and any() routines

- Posted by Ad Rienks <Ad_Rienks at COMPUSERVE.COM> Mar 22, 1997
- 616 views
- Last edited Mar 23, 1997

>In Euphoria version 1.5 you can call tick_rate(100) to get >a resolution of .01 seconds in the time() function. I'm ready to buy, tell me how. Bye Art Arthur P. Adamson, The Engine Man, euclid at mail.horandata.net You should buy it, but in the meantime you can download it from the Official Euphoria Homepage, and already use it. Ad Rienks. Hi Art, I really appreciate what you did in testing my code against that by Jeff Zeitlin. He has send me a note that he has seen my point and is going to update his code along the lines I suggested. But there is still one thing that keeps me wondering: can you, or maybe somebody else, explain the differences in speed when testing for '<, >, <=, >= and =' ? Could this be inexactness that can be eliminated by setting tick_rate() higher? Or is it something else? Are you running your program under Windows 95? In that case, maybe the Windows shell is also consuming time. I always run Euphoria programs from the DOS prompt. I myself will also test this again using tick_rate. BTW: Jeff said I should not complain about the speed of 100000 comparisons being done in tenths of seconds. Well, I don't. In fact, I keep being surprised with the speed at which Euphoria is doing calculations and comparisons on my now already 'oldfashioned' P75. Compliments again to RDS. ================================================================= Ad Rienks AdRienks at compuserve.com Does anyone have a suggestion for a nice signature?

### 7. Re: all() and any() routines

- Posted by Arthur Adamson <euclid at HORANDATA.NET> Mar 23, 1997
- 617 views

> But there is still one thing >that keeps me wondering: can you, or maybe somebody else, explain the >differences in speed when testing for '<, >, <=, >= and =' ? >Could this be inexactness that can be eliminated by setting tick_rate() >higher? I don't think the tick rate is responsible since the effect is always there. Re explanation, I'm waiting/expecting some of our colleagues to explain/fix the discrepance. >Or is it something else? Are you running your program under Windows 95? In >that case, maybe the Windows shell is also consuming time. I always run >Euphoria programs from the DOS prompt. I myself will also test this again >using tick_rate. I use DOS 6.22 Bye Art Arthur P. Adamson, The Engine Man, euclid at mail.horandata.net