Re: $100 Contest Question
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Mar 04, 2002
Chris are you sure the output is the same (hash table values)?
If not I would say that the table lookup speed might differ.
Right now, the table lookup is 100's time faster than reading in the
"words.txt" and creating the table.
reading and creating the table is 0.60 sec (233mhz) FAST
imagine what the lookup will be on say a 15000 word .txt file
like Junkos spell checker is timed at (2 sec)
Im saying the spellchecker could be @ 1 sec for the same using
EumsHash( ) but this is just a guestament.
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
Q: Are we monetarily insane?
A: YES
----- Original Message -----
From: <bensler at mail.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: $100 Contest Question
>
> I got it down to 0.11 with minor tweaks, I think I can get it even
> faster. :)
>
> Chris
>
> euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Derek Parnell" <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> > To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> > >
> > > Euman's hashtable runs at 1.16 but I tweaked that a lot and got it to
> > > run at
> > > 0.22
> >
> > Yes you did, thanks BIG D
> >
> > When "I" changed this:
> > h *= 16
> >
> > to this:
> > h *= 3 -- which doesnt give as Unique a value as before but is still
> > very effective.
> >
> > The routine was @250% faster bringing the time from 3.5 sec on my 233mhz
> > to 1.1 sec
> > This is the routine I was talking about sharing in a month or so.
> >
> > But when BIG D convinced me that getc( ) would shave another 0.25 sec
> > off the load time.
> > I was impressed. He also went a few steps further and now EumsHash runs
> > in at 0.60 sec
> > on my 233mhz laptop ( at 200mhz desk). I can imagine figures on PIII 500 or
> > higher machine
> > being (0.0something) or better now.
> >
> > Prolly could beat Junko's Spellchecker I havent coded this so Im not
> > sure.
> >
> > sure is BLAZING FAST!
> >
> > Euman
> >
> >
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
