hi,
i'm working with data for a clinical trial. i write data edit-checks
using a program called DataFax, which has its own built-in programming
language which is loosely based on C. as such, the code example might
not have the exact same syntax as C, but the principle is the same.
i'm working on a edit check that will test a series of values, like
so:
if (a == 1 && b == 1 && c == 1 && d == 1)
then....
it occured to me that i could store a, b, c, and d in an array and use
an iterator perform the same function:
number i = 1;
group TEST a, b, c, d; /* create an array called TEST and store a,b,c,d
*/
if (condition) {
while (i <= 4) {
if (TEST[i] == 1) {...;}
i = i + 1;}
then....
my question is: which one of these methods is the best practice? is one
inherently more efficient than the other? am i making sense?
thanks,
chris
21  1531 
christopher wrote:
hi,
i'm working with data for a clinical trial. i write data edit-checks
using a program called DataFax, which has its own built-in programming
language which is loosely based on C. as such, the code example might
not have the exact same syntax as C, but the principle is the same.
i'm working on a edit check that will test a series of values, like
so:
if (a == 1 && b == 1 && c == 1 && d == 1)
then....
it occured to me that i could store a, b, c, and d in an array and use
an iterator perform the same function:
number i = 1;
group TEST a, b, c, d; /* create an array called TEST and store a,b,c,d
*/
if (condition) {
while (i <= 4) {
if (TEST[i] == 1) {...;}
i = i + 1;}
then....
my question is: which one of these methods is the best practice?
is one
inherently more efficient than the other? am i making sense?
The first way is computationally less intensive.
--
pete
christopher wrote: i'm working with data for a clinical trial. i write data edit-checks
using a program called DataFax, which has its own built-in programming
language which is loosely based on C. as such, the code example might
not have the exact same syntax as C, but the principle is the same.
i'm working on a edit check that will test a series of values, like
so:
if (a == 1 && b == 1 && c == 1 && d == 1)
then....
it occured to me that i could store a, b, c, and d in an array and use
an iterator perform the same function:
number i = 1;
group TEST a, b, c, d; /* create an array called TEST and store a,b,c,d
*/
if (condition) {
while (i <= 4) {
if (TEST[i] == 1) {...;}
i = i + 1;}
then....
my question is: which one of these methods is the best practice? is one
inherently more efficient than the other? am i making sense?
My recommendation is to program for maximum clarity. The difference in
efficiency is probably negligible (you know the three rules of
optimization, right?). What representation to use depends on where the
variables a, b, c and d come from. Are they related? How are they related?
August
--
I am the "ILOVEGNU" signature virus. Just copy me to your
signature. This email was infected under the terms of the GNU
General Public License.
no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
christopher wrote:
no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
I can only remember the first two:
First rule of optimization: "Don't do it."
Second rule (for experts only): "Don't do it yet." http://groups.google.com/group/comp....12fa3f503ee66f
--
pete
christopher said: no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
I thought there were only two. They are:
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it /yet/.
My candidate for Rule 3 would be: If you must do this damn silly thing,
don't do it in this damn silly way.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Richard Heathfield wrote: christopher said:
no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
I thought there were only two. They are:
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it /yet/.
My candidate for Rule 3 would be: If you must do this damn silly thing,
don't do it in this damn silly way.
Mine would be: find out where to optimise by measurement, not guesswork.
--
Chris "do as I say, not as I have done ..." Dollin
In article <11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
"christopher" <co*****@gmail.com> wrote: hi,
i'm working with data for a clinical trial. i write data edit-checks
using a program called DataFax, which has its own built-in programming
language which is loosely based on C. as such, the code example might
not have the exact same syntax as C, but the principle is the same.
i'm working on a edit check that will test a series of values, like
so:
if (a == 1 && b == 1 && c == 1 && d == 1)
then....
it occured to me that i could store a, b, c, and d in an array and use
an iterator perform the same function:
number i = 1;
group TEST a, b, c, d; /* create an array called TEST and store a,b,c,d
*/
if (condition) {
while (i <= 4) {
if (TEST[i] == 1) {...;}
i = i + 1;}
then....
my question is: which one of these methods is the best practice? is one
inherently more efficient than the other? am i making sense?
It occured to me that you could write a, b, c, and d to a file and read
them back from that file everytime you need them. You could then use
some encryption to make the process of reading from the file more
secure.
You are not by any chance working on any IT project paid for by the
British government?
In article <11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>,
"christopher" <co*****@gmail.com> wrote: no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
Don't do it.
Don't do it yet.
Don't do it unless you measure the effect.
christopher wrote: hi,
i'm working with data for a clinical trial. i write data edit-checks
using a program called DataFax, which has its own built-in programming
language which is loosely based on C. as such, the code example might
not have the exact same syntax as C, but the principle is the same.
i'm working on a edit check that will test a series of values, like
so:
if (a == 1 && b == 1 && c == 1 && d == 1)
then....
it occured to me that i could store a, b, c, and d in an array and use
an iterator perform the same function:
number i = 1;
group TEST a, b, c, d; /* create an array called TEST and store a,b,c,d
*/
if (condition) {
while (i <= 4) {
if (TEST[i] == 1) {...;}
i = i + 1;}
then....
my question is: which one of these methods is the best practice? is one
inherently more efficient than the other? am i making sense?
thanks,
chris
Assuming that the language you use is like C, and the "..." doesn't
suppress any important details of the variant, then:
1) The expresssion handling of C fix that if, by example, if a==1 is
false, the remainder expression is not evaluated. However, in the loop
version, it seems that all the comparations will be done before to
execute or not the "then" clause.
2) Use TEST[i] instead of a named variable goes, in most part of
compilers, to more CPU expensive evaluation:
* "a" could be translated with: 1) read memory at address of a.
* "TEST[i]" could be evaluated with: 1) add i to TEST address; 2) read
memory"
3) And, of course, there are also the time to init "i", ...
Kind regards.
Chris Dollin said: Richard Heathfield wrote:
christopher said:
no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
I thought there were only two. They are:
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it /yet/.
My candidate for Rule 3 would be: If you must do this damn silly thing,
don't do it in this damn silly way.
Mine would be: find out where to optimise by measurement, not guesswork.
That's another way of saying the same thing. :-)
Actually, please forgive me for saying so, Chris, but I think mine is more
generally useful.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Richard Heathfield wrote: Chris Dollin said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
christopher said:
no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
I thought there were only two. They are:
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it /yet/.
My candidate for Rule 3 would be: If you must do this damn silly thing,
don't do it in this damn silly way.
Mine would be: find out where to optimise by measurement, not guesswork.
That's another way of saying the same thing. :-)
Well ... certainly mine is an instance of yours, but yours applies to
more situations than optimisation [1] ...
Actually, please forgive me for saying so, Chris, but I think mine is more
generally useful.
[2]
.... but gives less specific guidance; which works best is likely
target-dependent.
How about a revised your-3:
3. Don't be stupid about it.
[1] EG swimming from London to Paris by way of Seattle.
[2] Forgive? Moi? My grudges are held for eternity! No second of my time
will be wasted in avoiding plotting your downfall!! My arcane influence
is unavoidable!!!
<fx:knocking/>
Why, there's Alec Guinness and his friends, come for a pint!!!!
--
Chris "try, or try not -- there is no do" Dollin
christopher wrote: hi,
i'm working with data for a clinical trial. i write data edit-checks
using a program called DataFax, which has its own built-in programming
language which is loosely based on C. as such, the code example might
not have the exact same syntax as C, but the principle is the same.
i'm working on a edit check that will test a series of values, like
so:
if (a == 1 && b == 1 && c == 1 && d == 1)
then....
it occured to me that i could store a, b, c, and d in an array and use
an iterator perform the same function:
number i = 1;
group TEST a, b, c, d; /* create an array called TEST and store a,b,c,d
*/
if (condition) {
while (i <= 4) {
if (TEST[i] == 1) {...;}
i = i + 1;}
then....
my question is: which one of these methods is the best practice? is one
inherently more efficient than the other? am i making sense?
Assuming that you have considered the rules from previous post on
premature optimisation and decided that they do not apply to your case,
and assuming that a, b, c, d are of integer type then:
if (1 & a & b & c & d) {
}
will be probably slightly faster since it generates only one test which
should be better on processors with branch prediction.
a+, ld.
Laurent Deniau said: Assuming that you have considered the rules from previous post on
premature optimisation and decided that they do not apply to your case,
and assuming that a, b, c, d are of integer type then:
if (1 & a & b & c & d) {
}
will be probably slightly faster since it generates only one test which
should be better on processors with branch prediction.
But it doesn't test a, b, c and d against 1. Rather, it checks whether they
have the least significant bit set. Not the same thing.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Chris Dollin said: How about a revised your-3:
3. Don't be stupid about it.
That's even more widely applicable, as it applies to absolutely everything.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Richard Heathfield wrote: Laurent Deniau said:
Assuming that you have considered the rules from previous post on
premature optimisation and decided that they do not apply to your case,
and assuming that a, b, c, d are of integer type then:
if (1 & a & b & c & d) {
}
will be probably slightly faster since it generates only one test which
should be better on processors with branch prediction.
But it doesn't test a, b, c and d against 1. Rather, it checks whether they
have the least significant bit set. Not the same thing.
Are you sure?
a+, ld.
Laurent Deniau wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote: Laurent Deniau said:
Assuming that you have considered the rules from previous post on
premature optimisation and decided that they do not apply to your case,
and assuming that a, b, c, d are of integer type then:
if (1 & a & b & c & d) {
}
will be probably slightly faster since it generates only one test which
should be better on processors with branch prediction.
But it doesn't test a, b, c and d against 1. Rather, it checks whether they
have the least significant bit set. Not the same thing.
Are you sure?
a+, ld.
a=3;
if (a==1) /* jumps to else */
if(1&a) /* jumps to then */
(not tested).
Richard Heathfield wrote: Laurent Deniau said:
Assuming that you have considered the rules from previous post on
premature optimisation and decided that they do not apply to your case,
and assuming that a, b, c, d are of integer type then:
if (1 & a & b & c & d) {
}
will be probably slightly faster since it generates only one test which
should be better on processors with branch prediction.
But it doesn't test a, b, c and d against 1. Rather, it checks whether they
have the least significant bit set. Not the same thing.
Sorry you are right (I had bool in mind):
if ((1 & a & b & c & d) == (1 | a | b | c | d)) {
}
should be better.
a+, ld.
Richard Heathfield wrote: Chris Dollin said:
How about a revised your-3:
3. Don't be stupid about it.
That's even more widely applicable, as it applies to absolutely
everything.
In context, `it` is bound to `optimisation` ...
I'm stopping now. Buy you a pint sometime?
--
Chris "try, or try not -- there is no do" Dollin
Chris Dollin said: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Chris Dollin said:
How about a revised your-3:
3. Don't be stupid about it.
That's even more widely applicable, as it applies to absolutely
everything.
In context, `it` is bound to `optimisation` ...
....and optimisation is bound t... oh, skip it. It wasn't all that funny
anyway.
I'm stopping now.
Good plan.
Buy you a pint sometime?
Better plan - although finding the time could be an insoluble opportunity!
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Richard Heathfield wrote: Chris Dollin said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
christopher said:
no - i don't know the three rules of optimization. what are they?
I thought there were only two. They are:
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it /yet/.
My candidate for Rule 3 would be: If you must do this damn silly thing,
don't do it in this damn silly way.
Mine would be: find out where to optimise by measurement, not guesswork.
That's another way of saying the same thing. :-)
Actually, please forgive me for saying so, Chris, but I think mine is more
generally useful.
I would have put something like this as rule 4 and for rule 3 have
something like:
3) See if you have a performance problem.
The point being that you can see if you have a problem generally rather
more easily than doing the measurements to find out where the
performance bottle neck is. Why go to that effort if you don't need to?
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it /yet/.
My candidate for Rule 3 would be: If you must do this damn silly thing,
don't do it in this damn silly way.
My rule would be: remove the giftwrapping if you don't want to give the code
to someone else.
Everyone says that you should try algorithmic optimisation first, which is
true as far as it goes. Often, however, the main reason prgorams run slower
than required is because they are reformatting and recalcuating data to make
it easy to pass to lower-level functions.
For instance I have model which is described by torsion angles along a set
of links. The obvious way to get it into Cartesian coordinates is to pass in
the angles, and do rotations. However the set of allowed angles is rather
small. Therefore I can speed it up by precalcuating sines and cosines, but
only at the price of tying my allowed angle set to the conversion routine.
As it happens, the discrete angle set is causing us all types of problems,
so I was able to rewrite the program in about two hours to use continous
angles, to see whether improvement in flexibility was worth it. It would
have been harder had the code not been gift-wrapped. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: John Keeling |
last post by:
Dear all,
I tried the test program below. My interest is to examine timing
differences between insert vs. append & reverse for a list. My results
on my XP Python 2.3.4 are as follows:...
|
by: Bibby |
last post by:
Hi, I'm interested in getting started in the programming world. I've dabbled
in C, C++ and VB6. Which would be the best language to focus my attention to
regarding the following considerations:
...
|
by: johkar |
last post by:
When the output method is set to xml, even though I have CDATA around
my JavaScript, the operaters of && and < are converted to XML character
entities which causes errors in my JavaScript. I know...
|
by: mark |
last post by:
Hello-
i am trying to make the function addbitwise more efficient. the code
below takes an array of binary numbers (of size 5) and performs
bitwise addition. it looks ugly and it is not elegant...
|
by: Mark Shelor |
last post by:
I've encountered a troublesome inconsistency in the C-language Perl
extension I've written for CPAN (Digest::SHA). The problem involves the
use of a static array within a performance-critical...
|
by: rwf_20 |
last post by:
I just wanted to throw this up here in case anyone smarter than me has
a suggestion/workaround:
Problem:
I have a classic producer/consumer system which accepts 'commands' from
a socket and...
|
by: Zytan |
last post by:
Obviously you can't just use a simple for loop, since you may skip
over elements.
You could modify the loop counter each time an element is deleted.
But, the loop ending condition must be...
|
by: arnuld |
last post by:
This program follows from the section 6.5 of K&R2 where authors created a
doubly-linked list using a binary-tree based approach. The only thing I
have rewritten myself is the getword function. I am...
|
by: er |
last post by:
Hi All,
I have an array
x00,x01,x02,...,x0K0
x10,x11,x12,...,x1K1
..
..
..
xm0,xm1,xm2,...,xmKm
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
| |
