Search Results

Search found 90546 results on 3622 pages for 'code optimization'.

Page 161/3622 | < Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >

  • Will an optimizing compiler remove calls to a method whose result will be multiplied by zero?

    - by Tim R.
    Suppose you have a computationally expensive method, Compute(p), which returns some float, and another method, Falloff(p), which returns another float from zero to one. If you compute Falloff(p) * Compute(p), will Compute(p) still run when Falloff(p) returns zero? Or would you need to write a special case to prevent Compute(p) from running unnecessarily? Theoretically, an optimizing compiler could determine that omitting Compute when Falloff returns zero would have no effect on the program. However, this is kind of hard to test, since if you have Compute output some debug data to determine whether it is running, the compiler would know not to omit it because of that debug info, resulting in sort of a Schrodinger's cat situation. I know the safe solution to this problem is just to add the special case, but I'm just curious.

    Read the article

  • SimpleDB as Denormalized DB

    - by Max
    In an environment where you have a relational database which handles all business transactions is it a good idea to utilise SimpleDB for all data queries to have faster and more lightweight search? So the master data storage would be a relational DB which is "replicated"/"transformed" into SimpleDB to provide very fast read only queries since no JOINS and complicated subselects are needed.

    Read the article

  • negative values in integer programming model

    - by Lucia
    I'm new at using the glpk tool, and after writing a model for certain integer problem and running the solver (glpsol) i get negative values in some constraint that shouldn't be negative at all: No.Row name Activity Lower bound Upper bound 8 act[1] 0 -0 9 act[2] -3 -0 10 act[2] -2 -0 That constraint is defined like this: act{j in J}: sum{i in I} d[i,j] <= y[j]*m; where the sets and variables used are like this: param m, integer, 0; param n, integer, 0; set I := 1..m; set J := 1..n; var y{j in J}, binary; As the upper bound is negative, i think the problem may be in the y[j]*m parte, of the right side of the inequality.. perhaps something with the multiplication of binarys? or that the j in that side of the constrait is undefined? i dont know... i would be greatly grateful if someone can help me with this! :) and excuse for my bad english thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Merging and splitting overlapping rectangles to produce non-overlapping ones

    - by uj
    I am looking for an algorithm as follows: Given a set of possibly overlapping rectangles (All of which are "not rotated", can be uniformly represented as (left,top,right,bottom) tuplets, etc...), it returns a minimal set of (non-rotated) non-overlapping rectangles, that occupy the same area. It seems simple enough at first glance, but prooves to be tricky (at least to be done efficiently). Are there some known methods for this/ideas/pointers? Methods for not necessarily minimal, but heuristicly small, sets, are interesting as well, so are methods that produce any valid output set at all.

    Read the article

  • Sorting a list of numbers with modified cost

    - by David
    First, this was one of the four problems we had to solve in a project last year and I couldn’t find a suitable algorithm so we handle in a brute force solution. Problem: The numbers are in a list that is not sorted and supports only one type of operation. The operation is defined as follows: Given a position i and a position j the operation moves the number at position i to position j without altering the relative order of the other numbers. If i j, the positions of the numbers between positions j and i - 1 increment by 1, otherwise if i < j the positions of the numbers between positions i+1 and j decreases by 1. This operation requires i steps to find a number to move and j steps to locate the position to which you want to move it. Then the number of steps required to move a number of position i to position j is i+j. We need to design an algorithm that given a list of numbers, determine the optimal (in terms of cost) sequence of moves to rearrange the sequence. Attempts: Part of our investigation was around NP-Completeness, we make it a decision problem and try to find a suitable transformation to any of the problems listed in Garey and Johnson’s book: Computers and Intractability with no results. There is also no direct reference (from our point of view) to this kind of variation in Donald E. Knuth’s book: The art of Computer Programing Vol. 3 Sorting and Searching. We also analyzed algorithms to sort linked lists but none of them gives a good idea to find de optimal sequence of movements. Note that the idea is not to find an algorithm that orders the sequence, but one to tell me the optimal sequence of movements in terms of cost that organizes the sequence, you can make a copy and sort it to analyze the final position of the elements if you want, in fact we may assume that the list contains the numbers from 1 to n, so we know where we want to put each number, we are just concerned with minimizing the total cost of the steps. We tested several greedy approaches but all of them failed, divide and conquer sorting algorithms can’t be used because they swap with no cost portions of the list and our dynamic programing approaches had to consider many cases. The brute force recursive algorithm takes all the possible combinations of movements from i to j and then again all the possible moments of the rest of the element’s, at the end it returns the sequence with less total cost that sorted the list, as you can imagine the cost of this algorithm is brutal and makes it impracticable for more than 8 elements. Our observations: n movements is not necessarily cheaper than n+1 movements (unlike swaps in arrays that are O(1)). There are basically two ways of moving one element from position i to j: one is to move it directly and the other is to move other elements around i in a way that it reaches the position j. At most you make n-1 movements (the untouched element reaches its position alone). If it is the optimal sequence of movements then you didn’t move the same element twice.

    Read the article

  • SQL Database dilemma : Optimize for Querying or Writing?

    - by Harry
    I'm working on a personal project (Search engine) and have a bit of a dilemma. At the moment it is optimized for writing data to the search index and significantly slow for search queries. The DTA (Database Engine Tuning Adviser) recommends adding a couple of Indexed views inorder to speed up search queries. But this is to the detriment of writing new data to the DB. It seems I can't have one without the other! This is obviously not a new problem. What is a good strategy for this issue?

    Read the article

  • Get count matches in query on large table very slow

    - by Roy Roes
    I have a mysql table "items" with 2 integer fields: seid and tiid The table has about 35000000 records, so it's very large. seid tiid ----------- 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 4 1 4 2 The table has a primary key on both fields, an index on seid and an index on tiid. Someone types in 1 or more tiid values and now I would like to get the seid with most results. For example when someone types 1,2,3, I would like to get seid 2 and 4 as result. They both have 2 matches on the tiid values. My query so far: SELECT COUNT(*) as c, seid FROM items WHERE tiid IN (1,2,3) GROUP BY seid HAVING c = (SELECT COUNT(*) as c, seid FROM items WHERE tiid IN (1,2,3) GROUP BY seid ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 1) But this query is extremly slow, because of the large table. Does anyone know how to construct a better query for this purpose?

    Read the article

  • Has anyone ever successfully make index merge work for MySQL?

    - by user198729
    Setup: mysql> create table t(a integer unsigned,b integer unsigned); mysql> insert into t(a,b) values (1,2),(1,3),(2,4); mysql> create index i_t_a on t(a); mysql> create index i_t_b on t(b); mysql> explain select * from t where a=1 or b=4; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | t | ALL | i_t_a,i_t_b | NULL | NULL | NULL | 3 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Is there something I'm missing? Update mysql> explain select * from t where a=1 or b=4; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | t | ALL | i_t_a,i_t_b | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1863 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Version: mysql> select version(); +----------------------+ | version() | +----------------------+ | 5.1.36-community-log | +----------------------+ Has anyone ever successfully make index merge work for MySQL? I'll be glad to see successful stories here:)

    Read the article

  • Ternary Operators in JavaScript Without an "Else"

    - by Oscar Godson
    I've been using them forever, and I love them. To me they see cleaner and i can scan faster, but ever since I've been using them i've always had to put null in the else conditions that don't have anything. Is there anyway around it? E.g. condition ? x=true : null ; basically, is there a way to do: condition ? x=true; Now it shows up as a syntax error...

    Read the article

  • Reduce Processing Time of accessing databse

    - by medma
    hello all, I m making an app which requires remote databse connection. I want the values in picker from database but when I click on button to invoke picker it takes some time to fetch the values and displaying. Is there any way to do it fast? and also is there any way to reduce the time of transition between 2 views? Thanx

    Read the article

  • Overhead of serving pages - JSPs vs. PHP vs. ASPXs vs. C

    - by John Shedletsky
    I am interested in writing my own internet ad server. I want to serve billions of impressions with as little hardware possible. Which server-side technologies are best suited for this task? I am asking about the relative overhead of serving my ad pages as either pages rendered by PHP, or Java, or .net, or coding Http responses directly in C and writing some multi-socket IO monster to serve requests (I assume this one wins, but if my assumption is wrong, that would actually be most interesting). Obviously all the most efficient optimizations are done at the algorithm level, but I figure there has got to be some speed differences at the end of the day that makes one method of serving ads better than another. How much overhead does something like apache or IIS introduce? There's got to be a ton of extra junk in there I don't need. At some point I guess this is more a question of which platform/language combo is best suited - please excuse the in-adroitly posed question, hopefully you understand what I am trying to get at.

    Read the article

  • Java - Optimize finding a string in a list

    - by Mark
    I have an ArrayList of objects where each object contains a string 'word' and a date. I need to check to see if the date has passed for a list of 500 words. The ArrayList could contain up to a million words and dates. The dates I store as integers, so the problem I have is attempting to find the word I am looking for in the ArrayList. Is there a way to make this faster? In python I have a dict and mWords['foo'] is a simple lookup without looping through the whole 1 million items in the mWords array. Is there something like this in java? for (int i = 0; i < mWords.size(); i++) { if ( word == mWords.get(i).word ) { mLastFindIndex = i; return mWords.get(i); } }

    Read the article

  • Optimize SELECT DISTINCT CONCAT query in MySQL

    - by L. Cosio
    Hello! I'm running this query: SELECT DISTINCT CONCAT(ALFA_CLAVE, FECHA_NACI) FROM listado GROUP BY ALFA_CLAVE HAVING count(CONCAT(ALFA_CLAVE, FECHA_NACI)) > 1 Is there any way to optimize it? Queries are taking 2-3 hours on a table with 850,000 rows. Adding an index to ALFA_CLAVE and FECHA_NACI would work? Thanks in advanced

    Read the article

  • How to make this JavaScript much faster?

    - by Ralph
    Still trying to answer this question, and I think I finally found a solution, but it runs too slow. var $div = $('<div>') .css({ 'border': '1px solid red', 'position': 'absolute', 'z-index': '65535' }) .appendTo('body'); $('body *').live('mousemove', function(e) { var topElement = null; $('body *').each(function() { if(this == $div[0]) return true; var $elem = $(this); var pos = $elem.offset(); var width = $elem.width(); var height = $elem.height(); if(e.pageX > pos.left && e.pageY > pos.top && e.pageX < (pos.left + width) && e.pageY < (pos.top + height)) { var zIndex = document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(this, null).getPropertyValue('z-index'); if(zIndex == 'auto') zIndex = $elem.parents().length; if(topElement == null || zIndex > topElement.zIndex) { topElement = { 'node': $elem, 'zIndex': zIndex }; } } }); if(topElement != null ) { var $elem = topElement.node; $div.offset($elem.offset()).width($elem.width()).height($elem.height()); } }); It basically loops through all the elements on the page and finds the top-most element beneath the cursor. Is there maybe some way I could use a quad-tree or something and segment the page so the loop runs faster?

    Read the article

  • C++ Reserve Memory Space

    - by uray
    is there any way to reserve memory space to be used later by default Windows Memory Manager so that my application won't run out of memory if my program don't use space more than I have reserved at start of my program?

    Read the article

  • C++ DWORD* to BYTE*

    - by NomeSkavinski
    My issue, i am trying to convert and array of dynamic memory of type DWORD to a BYTE. Fair enough i can for loop through this and convert the DWORD into a BYTE per entry. But is their a faster way to do this? to take a pointer to DWORD data and convert the whole piece of data into a pointer to BYTE data? such as using a memcpy operation? I feel this is not possible, im not requesting an answer just an experienced opinion on my approach, as i have tried testing both approaches but seem to fail getting to a solution on my second solution. Thanks for any input, again no answers just a point in the right direction. Nor is this a homework question, i felt that had to be mentioned.

    Read the article

  • How can I write faster JavaScript?

    - by a paid nerd
    I'm writing an HTML5 canvas visualization. According to the Chrome Developer Tools profiler, 90% of the work is being done in (program), which I assume is the V8 interpreter at work calling functions and switching contexts and whatnot. Other than logic optimizations (e.g., only redrawing parts of the visualization that have changed), what can I do to optimize the CPU usage of my JavaScript? I'm willing to sacrifice some amount of readability and extensibility for performance. Is there a big list I'm missing because my Google skills suck? I have some ideas but I'm not sure if they're worth it: Limit function calls When possible, use arrays instead of objects and properties Use variables for math operation results as much as possible Cache common math operations such as Math.PI / 180 Use sin and cos approximation functions instead of Math.sin() and Math.cos() Reuse objects when passing around data instead of creating new ones Replace Math.abs() with ~~ Study jsperf.com until my eyes bleed Use a preprocessor on my JavaScript to do some of the above operations

    Read the article

  • Optimizing C++ Tree Generation

    - by cam
    Hi, I'm generating a Tic-Tac-Toe game tree (9 seconds after the first move), and I'm told it should take only a few milliseconds. So I'm trying to optimize it, I ran it through CodeAnalyst and these are the top 5 calls being made (I used bitsets to represent the Tic-Tac-Toe board): std::_Iterator_base::_Orphan_me std::bitset<9::test std::_Iterator_base::_Adopt std::bitset<9::reference::operator bool std::_Iterator_base::~_Iterator_base void BuildTreeToDepth(Node &nNode, const int& nextPlayer, int depth) { if (depth > 0) { //Calculate gameboard states int evalBoard = nNode.m_board.CalculateBoardState(); bool isFinished = nNode.m_board.isFinished(); if (isFinished || (nNode.m_board.isWinner() > 0)) { nNode.m_winCount = evalBoard; } else { Ticboard tBoard = nNode.m_board; do { int validMove = tBoard.FirstValidMove(); if (validMove != -1) { Node f; Ticboard tempBoard = nNode.m_board; tempBoard.Move(validMove, nextPlayer); tBoard.Move(validMove, nextPlayer); f.m_board = tempBoard; f.m_winCount = 0; f.m_Move = validMove; int currPlay = (nextPlayer == 1 ? 2 : 1); BuildTreeToDepth(f,currPlay, depth - 1); nNode.m_winCount += f.m_board.CalculateBoardState(); nNode.m_branches.push_back(f); } else { break; } }while(true); } } } Where should I be looking to optimize it? How should I optimize these 5 calls (I don't recognize them=.

    Read the article

  • Help on MySQL table indexing when GROUP BY is used in a query

    - by Silver Light
    Thank you for your attention. There are two INNODB tables: Table authors id INT nickname VARCHAR(50) status ENUM('active', 'blocked') about TEXT Table books author_id INT title VARCHAR(150) I'm running a query against these tables, to get each author and a count of books he has: SELECT a. * , COUNT( b.id ) AS book_count FROM authors AS a, books AS b WHERE a.status != 'blocked' AND b.author_id = a.id GROUP BY a.id ORDER BY a.nickname This query is very slow (takes about 6 seconds to execute). I have an index on books.author_id and it works perfectly, but I do not know how to create an index on authors table, so that this query could use it. Here is how current EXPLAIN looks: id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 SIMPLE a ALL PRIMARY,id_status_nickname NULL NULL NULL 3305 Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort 1 SIMPLE b ref key_author_id key_author_id 5 a.id 2 Using where; Using index I've looked at MySQL manual on optimizing queries with group by, but could not figure out how I can apply it on my query. I'll appreciate any help and hints on this - what must be the index structure, so that MySQL could use it?

    Read the article

  • Optimize SQL query (Facebook-like application)

    - by fabriciols
    My application is similar to Facebook, and I'm trying to optimize the query that get user records. The user records are that he as src ou dst. The src is in usermuralentry directly, the dst list are in usermuralentry_user. So, a entry can have one src and many dst. I have those tables: mysql> desc usermuralentry ; +-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | user_src_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | | private | tinyint(1) | NO | | NULL | | | content | longtext | NO | | NULL | | | date | datetime | NO | | NULL | | | last_update | datetime | NO | | NULL | | +-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ 10 rows in set (0.10 sec) mysql> desc usermuralentry_user ; +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | usermuralentry_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | | userinfo_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ 3 rows in set (0.00 sec) And the following query to retrieve information from two users. mysql> explain SELECT * FROM usermuralentry AS a , usermuralentry_user AS b WHERE a.user_src_id IN ( 1, 2 ) OR ( a.id = b.usermuralentry_id AND b.userinfo_id IN ( 1, 2 ) ); +----+-------------+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------+------+---------+------------------------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------+------+---------+------------------------------------------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | b | ALL | usermuralentry_id,usermuralentry_user_bcd7114e,usermuralentry_user_6b192ca7 | NULL | NULL | NULL | 147188 | | | 1 | SIMPLE | a | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1371289 | Range checked for each record (index map: 0x1) | +----+-------------+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------+------+---------+------------------------------------------------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) but it is taking A LOT of time... Some tips to optimize? Can the table schema be better in my application?

    Read the article

  • Iterative Reduction to Null Matrix

    - by user1459032
    Here's the problem: I'm given a matrix like Input: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 At each step, I need to find a "second" matrix of 1's and 0's with no two 1's on the same row or column. Then, I'll subtract the second matrix from the original matrix. I will repeat the process until I get a matrix with all 0's. Furthermore, I need to take the least possible number of steps. I need to print all the "second" matrices in O(n) time. In the above example I can get to the null matrix in 3 steps by subtracting these three matrices in order: Expected output: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 I have coded an attempt, in which I am finding the first maximum value and creating the second matrices based on the index of that value. But for the above input I am getting 4 output matrices, which is wrong: My output: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 My solution works for most of the test cases but fails for the one given above. Can someone give me some pointers on how to proceed, or find an algorithm that guarantees optimality? Test case that works: Input: 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 Output 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

    Read the article

  • Optimize INSERT / UPDATE / DELETE operation

    - by clime
    I wonder if the following script can be optimized somehow. It does write a lot to disk because it deletes possibly up-to-date rows and reinserts them. I was thinking about applying something like "insert ... on duplicate key update" and found some possibilities for single-row updates but I don't know how to apply it in the context of INSERT INTO ... SELECT query. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION update_member_search_index() RETURNS VOID AS $$ DECLARE member_content_type_id INTEGER; BEGIN member_content_type_id := (SELECT id FROM django_content_type WHERE app_label='web' AND model='member'); DELETE FROM watson_searchentry WHERE content_type_id = member_content_type_id; INSERT INTO watson_searchentry (engine_slug, content_type_id, object_id, object_id_int, title, description, content, url, meta_encoded) SELECT 'default', member_content_type_id, web_member.id, web_member.id, web_member.name, '', web_user.email||' '||web_member.normalized_name||' '||web_country.name, '', '{}' FROM web_member INNER JOIN web_user ON (web_member.user_id = web_user.id) INNER JOIN web_country ON (web_member.country_id = web_country.id) WHERE web_user.is_active=TRUE; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; EDIT: Schemas of web_member, watson_searchentry, web_user, web_country: http://pastebin.com/3tRVPPVi. (content_type_id, object_id_int) in watson_searchentry is unique pair in the table but atm the index is not present (there is no use for it). This script should be run at most once a day for full rebuilds of search index.

    Read the article

  • is there any faster way to parse than by walk each byte?

    - by uray
    is there any faster way to parse a text than by walk each byte of the text? I wonder if there is any special CPU (x86/x64) instruction for string operation that is used by string library, that somehow used to optimize the parsing routine. for example instruction like finding a token in a string that could be run by hardware instead of looping each byte until a token is found.

    Read the article

  • Efficient SQL to count an occurrence in the latest X rows

    - by pulegium
    For example I have: create table a (i int); Assume there are 10k rows. I want to count 0's in the last 20 rows. Something like: select count(*) from (select i from a limit 20) where i = 0; Is that possible to make it more efficient? Like a single SQL statement or something? PS. DB is SQLite3 if that matters at all...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >