Hi,
regarding memoizing. There is a class of functions, that must use
some kind of memoizing to work at all, I think. The number of the
possibilities for parameters does not matter, you can store only
important results (depending on what you consider important - eg.
expensive or recent results...)
Because I used a non-real-life example for testing, here is
something more adequate for memoizing purposes:
Block/find time: 14.5 count: 7771
Block/bfind time: 5.875 count: 7771
Hash/find time: 28.5 count: 7771
The source code:
REBOL[
Title: "Seconds"
Author: "Ladislav Mecir"
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19/5/1999
File: %seconds.r
]
seconds: function [
{Compute difference between dates in seconds}
a [date!] "first date"
b [date!] "second date"
] [diff] [
diff: b - a
diff: 24 * diff + b/time/hour - a/time/hour +
b/zone/hour - a/zone/hour
diff: 60 * diff + b/time/minute - a/time/minute
60 * diff + b/time/second - a/time/second
]
REBOL[
Title: "Time-block"
Author: "Ladislav Mecir"
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19/5/1999
File: %timblk.r
Purpose: {
Measure time of a block execution with given relative
accuracy.
This function can even time the execution of the empty
block.
Suggested values for accuracy are: 0.05 to 0.30.
Accuracy better than 0.05 may not be reachable,
accuracy worse than 0.30 may not be useful.
}
]
include %seconds.r
time-block: function [
"Time a block."
block [block!]
accuracy [decimal!]
/verbose
] [
guess count lower upper start finish result
] [
if verbose [print ["Timing a block:" block]]
guess: 0
count: 1
lower: 1 - :accuracy
upper: 1 + :accuracy
while [
start: now
loop :count :block
finish: now
result: (seconds start finish) / count
if verbose [
prin "Iterations: "
prin count
prin ". Time/iteration: "
prin result
prin " seconds.^/"
]
any [
result <= 0
guess < (result * lower)
guess > (result * upper)
]
][
guess: result
count: count * 2
]
result
]
{
Example:
time-block [] 0,05
}
Rebol []
bfind: func [
blk [block!]
value
/local d u m
] [
d: 1
u: length? blk
while [(m: to integer! (d + u) / 2) > d] [
either (pick blk m) <= value [d: m] [u: m]
]
either (pick blk u) <= value [u] [d]
]
include %timblk.r
n: 8192 ; the test size
m: 10 * n ; random number range
prin "Block/find time: "
prin time-block [
random/seed 1
c: 0
blk: copy []
repeat i n [
d: random m
if not find blk d [
c: c + 1
append blk d
]
]
] 0.05
prin " count: "
print c
prin "Block/bfind time: "
prin time-block [
random/seed 1
c: 0
blk: copy []
repeat i n [
d: random m
either empty? blk [
c: c + 1
insert blk d
] [
bf: bfind blk d
if not (pick blk bf) = d [
c: c + 1
insert skip blk either (pick blk bf) > d [
bf - 1
] [
bf
] d
]
]
]
] 0.05
prin " count: "
print c
prin "Hash/find time: "
prin time-block [
random/seed 1
c: 0
blk: make hash! []
repeat i n [
d: random m
if not find blk d [
c: c + 1
insert blk d
]
]
] 0.05
prin " count: "
print c
>
>
> Hi, Ladislav,
>
> if you are interested only in an associative array,
> then a properly implemented hash should beat the
> hell out of even a binary search on large data.
>
> I guess it depends somewhat on the quality of the
> hash function and other aspects of the implementation.
>
> So, if you can beat the Rebol hash, which is probably compiled
> c-code, with your binary search written in interpreted Rebol,
> then RT had better take a look at their Rebol hashes.
>
> Would you like to share some test source code with us
> so we can try to duplicate and analyze your results?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -galt
>
> p.s. Does memo-ize only make sense when there are a limited
> number of possibilities for the parameters? If the space of
possible
> values is very large and requests could come in a sort of
> random or rarely repeating way then the memo-ize trick wouldn't
> do much good, would it?
>
>
>
