RE: $100 Contest Question
- Posted by bensler at mail.com Mar 04, 2002
- 436 views
Grr, I DID test before I said anything, to be sure. But I double checkled, and the values aren't the same :( I'll have to see if I can still do it. Like Derek said though, I don't see the purpose of using that table. What does it matter what the first letter of each word is? Only a minute set of circumstances would benefit from it. Chris euman at bellsouth.net wrote: > 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 > > > > > >