On 12/28/06 11:14 PM, John McKernon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > However, I have a sort function that does a fairly complicated multi-level > shell sort on my data, with lots of extracting bytes from integers and then > comparing the bytes. The RB version of the entire sort takes 18 seconds to > run, where the VB and FB versions take about a second. The actual data > itself isn't being moved, just index pointers to it. There is very little > string comparing going on, and no variants. But yes, there is a whole lot of > data zipping back and forth in memory.
You'd be amazed at how many times the question of RB's speed comes up in these lists, and how often it turns out that there is a way to write the code so that will not only be as fast as the rivals, it will often be faster. Heck, I started a topic here a few weeks ago comparing RB to the venerable perl where RB was taking 4 times as long to process some data. By the time I go through optimizing (with many helpful suggestions from the members of this list), it turned out RB could actually be faster than perl. What I am getting at (finally) is that there is probably a way to write your code so that it is as fast, if not faster, than FB and VB, but it would helps us if we could see your sort code. Otherwise, all of our suggestions will be in the abstract and may not be applicable to your situation. __________________________________________________________________________ Kem Tekinay (212) 201-1465 MacTechnologies Consulting Fax (914) 242-7294 http://www.mactechnologies.com Pager (917) 491-5546 To join the MacTechnologies Consulting mailing list, send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
