Sorry, I was thinking something else. Code 1 should be faster since arrays are stored in row-major fashion, the entire row will fit in cache, and accessing sequentially in the row would be faster because of higher cache hits than Code 2.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Gaurav Menghani <gaurav.mengh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the dimensions are same, both will execute equally fast. > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Kamakshii Aggarwal > <kamakshi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> which code executes faster? >> code1:- for(i=0;i<n;i++) >> for(j=0;j<n;j++) >> large_array[i][j]=0; >> code2:- for(j=0;j<n;j++) >> for(i=0;i<n;i++) >> large_array[i][j]=0; >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Kamakshi >> kamakshi...@gmail.com >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Algorithm Geeks" group. >> To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Gaurav Menghani > -- Gaurav Menghani -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
