Re: subsequence storage

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message 

snipsnipsnipcutcutcutsnipsnip
Ad Rienks wrote:
> The way you do it is very inefficient.
> You should first allocate room for
> all sequences and subsequences, and
> then fill them up. Appending and
> concatenating actually has to move
> and reallocate space, as you rightly
> said. But...
> -- now try these tests:
snipslicecutsnipsnipcutseversnip
I ran the tests Ad gave us to try and on my
machine (Pentium) the subsequence code (part2)
          ***BEAT***
the sequence code (part1) every time by a
factor of 150% (0.06-part1 vs 0.04-part2)
I found this interesting :)

--Hawke'

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Search



Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu