Search Results

Search found 15401 results on 617 pages for 'memory optimization'.

Page 184/617 | < Previous Page | 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191  | Next Page >

  • Faster way to split a string and count characters using R?

    - by chrisamiller
    I'm looking for a faster way to calculate GC content for DNA strings read in from a FASTA file. This boils down to taking a string and counting the number of times that the letter 'G' or 'C' appears. I also want to specify the range of characters to consider. I have a working function that is fairly slow, and it's causing a bottleneck in my code. It looks like this: ## ## count the number of GCs in the characters between start and stop ## gcCount <- function(line, st, sp){ chars = strsplit(as.character(line),"")[[1]] numGC = 0 for(j in st:sp){ ##nested ifs faster than an OR (|) construction if(chars[[j]] == "g"){ numGC <- numGC + 1 }else if(chars[[j]] == "G"){ numGC <- numGC + 1 }else if(chars[[j]] == "c"){ numGC <- numGC + 1 }else if(chars[[j]] == "C"){ numGC <- numGC + 1 } } return(numGC) } Running Rprof gives me the following output: > a = "GCCCAAAATTTTCCGGatttaagcagacataaattcgagg" > Rprof(filename="Rprof.out") > for(i in 1:500000){gcCount(a,1,40)}; > Rprof(NULL) > summaryRprof(filename="Rprof.out") self.time self.pct total.time total.pct "gcCount" 77.36 76.8 100.74 100.0 "==" 18.30 18.2 18.30 18.2 "strsplit" 3.58 3.6 3.64 3.6 "+" 1.14 1.1 1.14 1.1 ":" 0.30 0.3 0.30 0.3 "as.logical" 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.0 "as.character" 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.0 $by.total total.time total.pct self.time self.pct "gcCount" 100.74 100.0 77.36 76.8 "==" 18.30 18.2 18.30 18.2 "strsplit" 3.64 3.6 3.58 3.6 "+" 1.14 1.1 1.14 1.1 ":" 0.30 0.3 0.30 0.3 "as.logical" 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.0 "as.character" 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.0 $sampling.time [1] 100.74 Any advice for making this code faster?

    Read the article

  • PostGres - run a query in batches?

    - by CaffeineIV
    Is it possible to loop through a query so that if (for example) 500,000 rows are found, it'll return results for the first 10,000 and then rerun the query again? So, what I want to do is run a query and build an array, like this: $result = pg_query("SELECT * FROM myTable"); $i = 0; while($row = pg_fetch_array($result) ) { $myArray[$i]['id'] = $row['id']; $myArray[$i]['name'] = $row['name']; $i++; } But, I know that there will be several hundred thousand rows, so I wanted to do it in batches of like 10,000... 1- 9,999 and then 10,000 - 10,999 etc... The reason why is because I keep getting this error: Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 536870912 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 3 bytes) Which, incidentally, I don't understand how 3 bytes could exhaust 512M... So, if that's something that I can just change, that'd be great, although, still might be better to do this in batches?

    Read the article

  • Is this implementation truely tail-recursive?

    - by CFP
    Hello everyone! I've come up with the following code to compute in a tail-recursive way the result of an expression such as 3 4 * 1 + cos 8 * (aka 8*cos(1+(3*4))) The code is in OCaml. I'm using a list refto emulate a stack. type token = Num of float | Fun of (float->float) | Op of (float->float->float);; let pop l = let top = (List.hd !l) in l := List.tl (!l); top;; let push x l = l := (x::!l);; let empty l = (l = []);; let pile = ref [];; let eval data = let stack = ref data in let rec _eval cont = match (pop stack) with | Num(n) -> cont n; | Fun(f) -> _eval (fun x -> cont (f x)); | Op(op) -> _eval (fun x -> cont (op x (_eval (fun y->y)))); in _eval (fun x->x) ;; eval [Fun(fun x -> x**2.); Op(fun x y -> x+.y); Num(1.); Num(3.)];; I've used continuations to ensure tail-recursion, but since my stack implements some sort of a tree, and therefore provides quite a bad interface to what should be handled as a disjoint union type, the call to my function to evaluate the left branch with an identity continuation somehow irks a little. Yet it's working perfectly, but I have the feeling than in calling the _eval (fun y->y) bit, there must be something wrong happening, since it doesn't seem that this call can replace the previous one in the stack structure... Am I misunderstanding something here? I mean, I understand that with only the first call to _eval there wouldn't be any problem optimizing the calls, but here it seems to me that evaluation the _eval (fun y->y) will require to be stacked up, and therefore will fill the stack, possibly leading to an overflow... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Measuring debug vs release of ASP.NET applications

    - by Alex Angas
    A question at work came up about building ASP.NET applications in release vs debug mode. When researching further (particularly on SO), general advice is that setting <compilation debug="true"> in web.config has a much bigger impact. Has anyone done any testing to get some actual numbers about this? Here's the sort of information I'm looking for (which may give away my experience with testing such things): Execution time | Debug build | Release build -------------------+---------------+--------------- Debug web.config | average 1 | average 2 Retail web.config | average 3 | average 4 Max memory usage | Debug build | Release build -------------------+---------------+--------------- Debug web.config | average 1 | average 2 Retail web.config | average 3 | average 4 Output file size | Debug build | Release build -------------------+---------------+--------------- | size 1 | size 2

    Read the article

  • Oracle Sql Query taking a day long to return results using dblink

    - by Suresh S
    Guys i have the following oracle sql query that gives me the monthwise report between the dates. Basically for nov month i want sum of values between the dates 01nov to 30 nov. The table tha is being queried is residing in another database and accesssed using dblink. The DT columns is of NUMBER type (for ex 20101201) .The execution of the query is taking a day long and not completed. kindly suggest me , if their is any optimisation that can be suggested to my DBA on the dblink, or any tuning that can be done on the query , or rewriting the same. SELECT /*+ PARALLEL (A 8) */ TO_CHAR(TRUNC(TRUNC(SYSDATE,'MM')- 1,'MM'),'MONYYYY') "MONTH", TYPE AS "TYPE", COLUMN, COUNT (DISTINCT A) AS "A_COUNT", COUNT (COLUMN) AS NO_OF_COLS, SUM (DURATION) AS "SUM_DURATION", SUM (COST) AS "COST" FROM **A@LN_PROD A** WHERE DT >=TO_NUMBER(TO_CHAR(TRUNC(TRUNC(SYSDATE,'MM')-1,'MM'),'YYYYMMDD')) AND DT < TO_NUMBER(TO_CHAR(TRUNC(TRUNC(SYSDATE,'MM'),'MM'),'YYYYMMDD')) GROUP BY TYPE, COLUMN

    Read the article

  • Splitting tables by field to optimize MySQL?

    - by AK
    Do splitting fields into multiple tables ever yield faster queries? Consider the following two scenarios: Table1 ----------- int PersonID text Value1 float Value2 or Table1 ----------- int PersonID text Value1 Table2 ----------- int PersonID float Value2 If Value1 and Value2 are always being displayed together, I imagine Table1 is always faster because the second schema would require two SELECT statements. But are there any situations where you would choose the second? If the number of records were expected to be really large?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing an embedded SELECT query in mySQL

    - by Crazy Serb
    Ok, here's a query that I am running right now on a table that has 45,000 records and is 65MB in size... and is just about to get bigger and bigger (so I gotta think of the future performance as well here): SELECT count(payment_id) as signup_count, sum(amount) as signup_amount FROM payments p WHERE tm_completed BETWEEN '2009-05-01' AND '2009-05-30' AND completed > 0 AND tm_completed IS NOT NULL AND member_id NOT IN (SELECT p2.member_id FROM payments p2 WHERE p2.completed=1 AND p2.tm_completed < '2009-05-01' AND p2.tm_completed IS NOT NULL GROUP BY p2.member_id) And as you might or might not imagine - it chokes the mysql server to a standstill... What it does is - it simply pulls the number of new users who signed up, have at least one "completed" payment, tm_completed is not empty (as it is only populated for completed payments), and (the embedded Select) that member has never had a "completed" payment before - meaning he's a new member (just because the system does rebills and whatnot, and this is the only way to sort of differentiate between an existing member who just got rebilled and a new member who got billed for the first time). Now, is there any possible way to optimize this query to use less resources or something, and to stop taking my mysql resources down on their knees...? Am I missing any info to clarify this any further? Let me know... EDIT: Here are the indexes already on that table: PRIMARY PRIMARY 46757 payment_id member_id INDEX 23378 member_id payer_id INDEX 11689 payer_id coupon_id INDEX 1 coupon_id tm_added INDEX 46757 tm_added, product_id tm_completed INDEX 46757 tm_completed, product_id

    Read the article

  • Can anyone recommend a decent tool for optimising images other than photoshop

    - by toomanyairmiles
    Can anyone recommend a decent tool for optimising images other than adobe photoshop, the gimp etc? I'm looking to optimise images for the web preferably online and free. Basically I have a client who can't install additional software on their work PC but needs to optimise photographs and other images for their website and is presently uploading 1 or 2 Mb files. On a personal level I'm interested to see what other people are using...

    Read the article

  • NSAutoreleasePool carrying across methods?

    - by Tim
    I'm building an iPhone application where I detach some threads to do long-running work in the background so as not to hang the UI. I understand that threads need NSAutoreleasePool instances for memory management. What I'm not sure about is if the threaded method calls another method - does that method also need an NSAutoreleasePool? Example code: - (void)primaryMethod { [self performSelectorInBackground:@selector(threadedMethod) withObject:nil]; } - (void)threadedMethod { NSAutoreleasePool *aPool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; // Some code here [self anotherMethod]; // Maybe more code here [aPool drain]; } - (void)anotherMethod { // More code here } The reason I ask is I'm receiving errors that objects are being autoreleased with no pool in place, and are "just leaking." I've seen other questions where people didn't have autorelease pools in place at all, and I understand why an autorelease pool is needed. I'm specifically interested in finding out whether an autorelease pool created in (in this example) threadedMethod applies to objects created in anotherMethod.

    Read the article

  • MySQL won't use index for query?

    - by Jack Sleight
    I have this table: CREATE TABLE `point` ( `id` INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `siteid` INT(11) NOT NULL, `lft` INT(11) DEFAULT NULL, `rgt` INT(11) DEFAULT NULL, `level` SMALLINT(6) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `point_siteid_site_id` (`siteid`), CONSTRAINT `point_siteid_site_id` FOREIGN KEY (`siteid`) REFERENCES `site` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE ) ENGINE=INNODB AUTO_INCREMENT=35 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_unicode_ci And this query: SELECT * FROM `point` WHERE siteid = 1; Which results in this EXPLAIN information: +----+-------------+-------+------+----------------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+----------------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | point | ALL | point_siteid_site_id | NULL | NULL | NULL | 6 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+----------------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Question is, why isn't the query using the point_siteid_site_id index?

    Read the article

  • Is there a faster TList implementation ?

    - by dmauric.mp
    My application makes heavy use of TList, so I was wondering if there are any alternative implementations that are faster or optimized for particular use case. I know of RtlVCLOptimize.pas 2.77, which has optimized implementations of several TList methods. But I'd like to know if there is anything else out there. I also don't require it to be a TList descendant, I just need the TList functionality regardless of how it's implemented. It's entirely possible, given the rather basic functionality TList provides, that there is not much room for improvement, but would still like to verify that, hence this question.

    Read the article

  • "Anagram solver" based on statistics rather than a dictionary/table?

    - by James M.
    My problem is conceptually similar to solving anagrams, except I can't just use a dictionary lookup. I am trying to find plausible words rather than real words. I have created an N-gram model (for now, N=2) based on the letters in a bunch of text. Now, given a random sequence of letters, I would like to permute them into the most likely sequence according to the transition probabilities. I thought I would need the Viterbi algorithm when I started this, but as I look deeper, the Viterbi algorithm optimizes a sequence of hidden random variables based on the observed output. I am trying to optimize the output sequence. Is there a well-known algorithm for this that I can read about? Or am I on the right track with Viterbi and I'm just not seeing how to apply it?

    Read the article

  • How can I Query only __key__ on a Google Appengine PolyModel child?

    - by Gabriel
    So the situation is: I want to optimize my code some for doing counting of records. So I have a parent Model class Base, a PolyModel class Entry, and a child class of Entry Article: How would I query Article.key so I can reduce the query load but only get the Article count. My first thought was to use: q = db.GqlQuery("SELECT __key__ from Article where base = :1", i_base) but it turns out GqlQuery doesn't like that because articles are actually stored in a table called Entry. Would it be possible to Query the class attribute? something like: q = db.GqlQuery("select __key__ from Entry where base = :1 and :2 in class", i_base, 'Article') neither of which work. Turns out the answer is even easier. But I am going to finish this question because I looked everywhere for this. q = db.GqlQuery("select __key__ from Entry where base = :1 and class = :2", i_base, 'Article')

    Read the article

  • What does ER_WARN_FIELD_RESOLVED mean?

    - by VolkerK
    When SHOW WARNINGS after a EXPLAIN EXTENDED shows a Note 1276 Field or reference 'test.foo.bar' of SELECT #2 was resolved in SELECT #1 what exactly does that mean and what impact does it have? In my case it prevents mysql from using what seems to be a perfectly good index. But it's not about fixing that specific query (as it is an irrelevant test). I found http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/error-messages-server.html butError: 1276 SQLSTATE: HY000 (ER_WARN_FIELD_RESOLVED) Message: Field or reference '%s%s%s%s%s' of SELECT #%d was resolved in SELECT #%d isn't much of an explaination.

    Read the article

  • Why is Javascript's Math.floor the slowest way to calculate floor in Javascript?

    - by z5h
    I'm generally not a fan of microbenchmarks. But this one has a very interesting result. http://ernestdelgado.com/archive/benchmark-on-the-floor/ It suggests that Math.floor is the SLOWEST way to calculate floor in Javascript. ~~n, n|n, n&n all being faster. This seems pretty shocking as I would expect that people implementing Javascript in today's modern browsers would be some pretty smart people. Does floor do something important that the other methods fail to do? Is there any reason to use it?

    Read the article

  • Nodes set of the same type with if-test. Make it less.

    - by Kalinin
    How to make the code more beautiful (compact)? <xsl:template match="part"> <table class="part"> <xsl:if test="name != ''"> <tr> <td>????????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="name"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="model != ''"> <tr> <td>??????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="model"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="year != ''"> <tr> <td>???</td><td><xsl:value-of select="year"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="glass_type != ''"> <tr> <td>???</td><td><xsl:value-of select="glass_type"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="scancode != ''"> <tr> <td>???????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="scancode"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="eurocode != ''"> <tr> <td>???????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="eurocode"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="coment != ''"> <tr> <td>???????????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="coment"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="glass_size != ''"> <tr> <td>??????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="glass_size"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="vendor != ''"> <tr> <td>?????????????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="vendor"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="trademark != ''"> <tr> <td>???????? ?????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="trademark"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> <xsl:if test="fprice != ''"> <tr> <td>????</td><td><xsl:value-of select="fprice"/></td> </tr> </xsl:if> </table> </xsl:template> Update: i wrote: <my:translations xmlns:my="my:my"> <w e="name" r="????????"/> <w e="model" r="??????"/> <w e="year" r="???"/> <w e="glass_type" r="???"/> <w e="scancode" r="???????"/> <w e="eurocode" r="???????"/> <w e="comment" r="???????????"/> <w e="glass_size" r="??????"/> <w e="vendor" r="?????????????"/> <w e="trademark" r="???????? ?????"/> <w e="fprice" r="????"/> </my:translations> <xsl:value-of select="//w/@r"/> And have no result from this code. Is it normal? And how can i get new element w?

    Read the article

  • Why is doing a top(1) on an indexed column in SQL Server slow?

    - by reinier
    I'm puzzled by the following. I have a DB with around 10 million rows, and (among other indices) on 1 column (campaignid_int) is an index. Now I have 700k rows where the campaignid is indeed 3835 For all these rows, the connectionid is the same. I just want to find out this connectionid. use messaging_db; SELECT TOP (1) connectionid FROM outgoing_messages WITH (NOLOCK) WHERE (campaignid_int = 3835) Now this query takes approx 30 seconds to perform! I (with my small db knowledge) would expect that it would take any of the rows, and return me that connectionid If I test this same query for a campaign which only has 1 entry, it goes really fast. So the index works. How would I tackle this and why does this not work? edit: estimated execution plan: select (0%) - top (0%) - clustered index scan (100%)

    Read the article

  • Mysql - help me optimize this query (improved question)

    - by sandeepan-nath
    About the system: - There are tutors who create classes and packs - A tags based search approach is being followed.Tag relations are created when new tutors register and when tutors create packs (this makes tutors and packs searcheable). For details please check the section How tags work in this system? below. Following is the concerned query SELECT SUM(DISTINCT( t.tag LIKE "%Dictatorship%" )) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( t.tag LIKE "%democracy%" )) AS key_2_total_matches, COUNT(DISTINCT( od.id_od )) AS tutor_popularity, CASE WHEN ( IF(( wc.id_wc > 0 ), ( wc.wc_api_status = 1 AND wc.wc_type = 0 AND wc.class_date > '2010-06-01 22:00:56' AND wccp.status = 1 AND ( wccp.country_code = 'IE' OR wccp.country_code IN ( 'INT' ) ) ), 0) ) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS 'classes_published', CASE WHEN ( IF(( lp.id_lp > 0 ), ( lp.id_status = 1 AND lp.published = 1 AND lpcp.status = 1 AND ( lpcp.country_code = 'IE' OR lpcp.country_code IN ( 'INT' ) ) ), 0) ) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS 'packs_published', td . *, u . * FROM tutor_details AS td JOIN users AS u ON u.id_user = td.id_user LEFT JOIN learning_packs_tag_relations AS lptagrels ON td.id_tutor = lptagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN learning_packs AS lp ON lptagrels.id_lp = lp.id_lp LEFT JOIN learning_packs_categories AS lpc ON lpc.id_lp_cat = lp.id_lp_cat LEFT JOIN learning_packs_categories AS lpcp ON lpcp.id_lp_cat = lpc.id_parent LEFT JOIN learning_pack_content AS lpct ON ( lp.id_lp = lpct.id_lp ) LEFT JOIN webclasses_tag_relations AS wtagrels ON td.id_tutor = wtagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN webclasses AS wc ON wtagrels.id_wc = wc.id_wc LEFT JOIN learning_packs_categories AS wcc ON wcc.id_lp_cat = wc.id_wp_cat LEFT JOIN learning_packs_categories AS wccp ON wccp.id_lp_cat = wcc.id_parent LEFT JOIN order_details AS od ON td.id_tutor = od.id_author LEFT JOIN orders AS o ON od.id_order = o.id_order LEFT JOIN tutors_tag_relations AS ttagrels ON td.id_tutor = ttagrels.id_tutor JOIN tags AS t ON ( t.id_tag = ttagrels.id_tag ) OR ( t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag ) OR ( t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag ) WHERE ( u.country = 'IE' OR u.country IN ( 'INT' ) ) AND CASE WHEN ( ( t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag ) AND ( lp.id_lp 0 ) ) THEN lp.id_status = 1 AND lp.published = 1 AND lpcp.status = 1 AND ( lpcp.country_code = 'IE' OR lpcp.country_code IN ( 'INT' ) ) ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN ( ( t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag ) AND ( wc.id_wc 0 ) ) THEN wc.wc_api_status = 1 AND wc.wc_type = 0 AND wc.class_date '2010-06-01 22:00:56' AND wccp.status = 1 AND ( wccp.country_code = 'IE' OR wccp.country_code IN ( 'INT' ) ) ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN ( od.id_od 0 ) THEN od.id_author = td.id_tutor AND o.order_status = 'paid' AND CASE WHEN ( od.id_wc 0 ) THEN od.can_attend_class = 1 ELSE 1 END ELSE 1 END GROUP BY td.id_tutor HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 ORDER BY tutor_popularity DESC, u.surname ASC, u.name ASC LIMIT 0, 20 The problem The results returned by the above query are correct (AND logic working as per expectation), but the time taken by the query rises alarmingly for heavier data and for the current data I have it is like 25 seconds as against normal query timings of the order of 0.005 - 0.0002 seconds, which makes it totally unusable. It is possible that some of the delay is being caused because all the possible fields have not yet been indexed. The tag field of tags table is indexed. Is there something faulty with the query? What can be the reason behind 20+ seconds of execution time? How tags work in this system? When a tutor registers, tags are entered and tag relations are created with respect to tutor's details like name, surname etc. When a Tutors create packs, again tags are entered and tag relations are created with respect to pack's details like pack name, description etc. tag relations for tutors stored in tutors_tag_relations and those for packs stored in learning_packs_tag_relations. All individual tags are stored in tags table. The explain query output:- Please see this screenshot - http://www.test.examvillage.com/Explain_query.jpg

    Read the article

  • approximating log10[x^k0 + k1]

    - by Yale Zhang
    Greetings. I'm trying to approximate the function Log10[x^k0 + k1], where .21 < k0 < 21, 0 < k1 < ~2000, and x is integer < 2^14. k0 & k1 are constant. For practical purposes, you can assume k0 = 2.12, k1 = 2660. The desired accuracy is 5*10^-4 relative error. This function is virtually identical to Log[x], except near 0, where it differs a lot. I already have came up with a SIMD implementation that is ~1.15x faster than a simple lookup table, but would like to improve it if possible, which I think is very hard due to lack of efficient instructions. My SIMD implementation uses 16bit fixed point arithmetic to evaluate a 3rd degree polynomial (I use least squares fit). The polynomial uses different coefficients for different input ranges. There are 8 ranges, and range i spans (64)2^i to (64)2^(i + 1). The rational behind this is the derivatives of Log[x] drop rapidly with x, meaning a polynomial will fit it more accurately since polynomials are an exact fit for functions that have a derivative of 0 beyond a certain order. SIMD table lookups are done very efficiently with a single _mm_shuffle_epi8(). I use SSE's float to int conversion to get the exponent and significand used for the fixed point approximation. I also software pipelined the loop to get ~1.25x speedup, so further code optimizations are probably unlikely. What I'm asking is if there's a more efficient approximation at a higher level? For example: Can this function be decomposed into functions with a limited domain like log2((2^x) * significand) = x + log2(significand) hence eliminating the need to deal with different ranges (table lookups). The main problem I think is adding the k1 term kills all those nice log properties that we know and love, making it not possible. Or is it? Iterative method? don't think so because the Newton method for log[x] is already a complicated expression Exploiting locality of neighboring pixels? - if the range of the 8 inputs fall in the same approximation range, then I can look up a single coefficient, instead of looking up separate coefficients for each element. Thus, I can use this as a fast common case, and use a slower, general code path when it isn't. But for my data, the range needs to be ~2000 before this property hold 70% of the time, which doesn't seem to make this method competitive. Please, give me some opinion, especially if you're an applied mathematician, even if you say it can't be done. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is SQL DATEDIFF(year, ..., ...) an Expensive Computation?

    - by rlb.usa
    I'm trying to optimize up some horrendously complicated SQL queries because it takes too long to finish. In my queries, I have dynamically created SQL statements with lots of the same functions, so I created a temporary table where each function is only called once instead of many, many times - this cut my execution time by 3/4. So my question is, can I expect to see much of a difference if say, 1,000 datediff computations are narrowed to 100?

    Read the article

  • Long-running Database Query

    - by JamesMLV
    I have a long-running SQL Server 2005 query that I have been hoping to optimize. When I look at the actual execution plan, it says a Clustered Index Seek has 66% of the cost. Execuation Plan Snippit: <RelOp AvgRowSize="31" EstimateCPU="0.0113754" EstimateIO="0.0609028" EstimateRebinds="0" EstimateRewinds="0" EstimateRows="10198.5" LogicalOp="Clustered Index Seek" NodeId="16" Parallel="false" PhysicalOp="Clustered Index Seek" EstimatedTotalSubtreeCost="0.0722782"> <OutputList> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="quoteDate" /> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="price" /> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="tenure" /> </OutputList> <RunTimeInformation> <RunTimeCountersPerThread Thread="0" ActualRows="1067" ActualEndOfScans="1" ActualExecutions="1" /> </RunTimeInformation> <IndexScan Ordered="true" ScanDirection="FORWARD" ForcedIndex="false" NoExpandHint="false"> <DefinedValues> <DefinedValue> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="quoteDate" /> </DefinedValue> <DefinedValue> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="price" /> </DefinedValue> <DefinedValue> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="tenure" /> </DefinedValue> </DefinedValues> <Object Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Index="[_dta_index_Indices_14_320720195__K5_K2_K1_3]" Alias="[I]" /> <SeekPredicates> <SeekPredicate> <Prefix ScanType="EQ"> <RangeColumns> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="HedgeProduct" ComputedColumn="true" /> </RangeColumns> <RangeExpressions> <ScalarOperator ScalarString="(1)"> <Const ConstValue="(1)" /> </ScalarOperator> </RangeExpressions> </Prefix> <StartRange ScanType="GE"> <RangeColumns> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="tenure" /> </RangeColumns> <RangeExpressions> <ScalarOperator ScalarString="[@StartMonth]"> <Identifier> <ColumnReference Column="@StartMonth" /> </Identifier> </ScalarOperator> </RangeExpressions> </StartRange> <EndRange ScanType="LE"> <RangeColumns> <ColumnReference Database="[wf_1]" Schema="[dbo]" Table="[Indices]" Alias="[I]" Column="tenure" /> </RangeColumns> <RangeExpressions> <ScalarOperator ScalarString="[@EndMonth]"> <Identifier> <ColumnReference Column="@EndMonth" /> </Identifier> </ScalarOperator> </RangeExpressions> </EndRange> </SeekPredicate> </SeekPredicates> </IndexScan> </RelOp> From this, does anyone see an obvious problem that would be causing this to take so long? Here is the query: (SELECT quotedate, tenure, price, ActualVolume, HedgePortfolioValue, Price AS UnhedgedPrice, ((ActualVolume*Price - HedgePortfolioValue)/ActualVolume) AS HedgedPrice FROM ( SELECT [quoteDate] ,[price] , tenure ,isnull(wf_1.[Risks].[HedgePortValueAsOfDate2](1,tenureMonth,quotedate,price),0) as HedgePortfolioValue ,[TotalOperatingGasVolume] as ActualVolume FROM [wf_1].[dbo].[Indices] I inner join ( SELECT DISTINCT tenureMonth FROM [wf_1].[Risks].[KnowRiskTrades] WHERE HedgeProduct = 1 AND portfolio <> 'Natural Gas Hedge Transactions' ) B ON I.tenure=B.tenureMonth inner join ( SELECT [Month],[TotalOperatingGasVolume] FROM [wf_1].[Risks].[ActualGasVolumes] ) C ON C.[Month]=B.tenureMonth WHERE HedgeProduct = 1 AND quoteDate>=dateadd(day, -3*365, tenureMonth) AND quoteDate<=dateadd(day,-3,tenureMonth) )A )

    Read the article

  • Will the compiler optimize escaping an inner loop?

    - by BCS
    The code I have looks like this (all uses of done shown): bool done = false; for(int i = 0; i < big; i++) { ... for(int j = 0; j < wow; j++) { ... if(foo(i,j)) { done = true; break; } ... } if(done) break; ... } will any compilers convert it to this: for(int i = 0; i < big; i++) { ... for(int j = 0; j < wow; j++) { ... if(foo(i,j)) goto __done; // same as a labeled break if we had it ... } ... } __done:;

    Read the article

  • unroll nested for loops in C++

    - by Hristo
    How would I unroll the following nested loops? for(k = begin; k != end; ++k) { for(j = 0; j < Emax; ++j) { for(i = 0; i < N; ++i) { if (j >= E[i]) continue; array[k] += foo(i, tr[k][i], ex[j][i]); } } } I tried the following, but my output isn't the same, and it should be: for(k = begin; k != end; ++k) { for(j = 0; j < Emax; ++j) { for(i = 0; i+4 < N; i+=4) { if (j >= E[i]) continue; array[k] += foo(i, tr[k][i], ex[j][i]); array[k] += foo(i+1, tr[k][i+1], ex[j][i+1]); array[k] += foo(i+2, tr[k][i+2], ex[j][i+2]); array[k] += foo(i+3, tr[k][i+3], ex[j][i+3]); } if (i < N) { for (; i < N; ++i) { if (j >= E[i]) continue; array[k] += foo(i, tr[k][i], ex[j][i]); } } } } I will be running this code in parallel using Intel's TBB so that it takes advantage of multiple cores. After this is finished running, another function prints out what is in array[] and right now, with my unrolling, the output isn't identical. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Hristo

    Read the article

  • Verifying compiler optimizations in gcc/g++ by analyzing assembly listings

    - by Victor Liu
    I just asked a question related to how the compiler optimizes certain C++ code, and I was looking around SO for any questions about how to verify that the compiler has performed certain optimizations. I was trying to look at the assembly listing generated with g++ (g++ -c -g -O2 -Wa,-ahl=file.s file.c) to possibly see what is going on under the hood, but the output is too cryptic to me. What techniques do people use to tackle this problem, and are there any good references on how to interpret the assembly listings of optimized code or articles specific to the GCC toolchain that talk about this problem?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191  | Next Page >