Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 07:54 AM, Glasgow, David wrote: It may be that things have moved along a bit, or I am getting something wrong I'd be interested in any comments. Computers and timers are a lot more accurate. It is true that interrupts and system threads are running all the time and the time you measure will often be higher than what you want to look at (in some sense). If you are timing a one second operation you _will_ be including some system overhead in measurement. The precision timing may not mean much here. If you take lots of measurements and average those you will have the effective time in that environment, hardware and OS. If you are measuring very short times you need the precision. In this case, you can average. Make sure you throw out the outliers. Or you can take the minimum of several time trials. This tends to remove the effect of the OS, so you cannot compare to the times from the longer time method above. This does allow you to make some decisions in coding style. The minimum method may provide a useful measure for long periods also, depending on your use, but it will always include some system overhead time. In my method for measuring short times, I use the same command for getting the time before and after the operation to be measured. I also use that for measuring doing nothing, effectively measuring the time to make a measurement. I subtract that from my results. Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
Hi, Three questions below. Code that works for me; ten-line-limit for testing at this point: -- button #1 global gData, tStart, tElementNum on mouseUp put the milliseconds into tStartTime put the text of field impfield into gData put (the milliseconds - tStartTime) milliseconds into field say put 0 into tStart put 1 into tElementNum end mouseUp -- button #2 global gWordArray, gData, tStart, tElementNum on mouseUP put into field say ask enter a word to check set the wholeMatches to false put the milliseconds into tStartTime repeat with x = 1 to 500 put wordOffset(it,gData,tStart) into tNum put (tNum + tStart) into tStart if tNum 1 then exit repeat put tStart into gWordArray[tElementNum] add 1 to tElementNum end repeat put (the milliseconds - tStartTime) it tElementNum tStart cr into field say end mouseUp -- button #3 global gWordArray on mouseUp put the milliseconds into tStartTime put keys(gWordArray) into keyWordsList put return after field say repeat for each line l in keyWordsList put l tab gWordArray[l] return after displayResult end repeat put (the milliseconds - tStartTime) after field say put displayResult after field say end mouseUp 1.) This seems a little slow. It took 2.7 seconds to do (button #2) with 400 kbytes of text 209 possible hits for a single word. 2.) I noticed that it won't work with multiple words or empty space between characters. I would like to work with the numericle offset of characters and place that info gathered into an array if possible. 3.) I have an off-topic question about a single user pro-license. If I get that version does it mean that I can use it on Mac Windows to debug on those OS, or will I need to get a license for each OS that I wish to develope on? The documents were not clear enough for a carpenter regarding this. So I'm asking here. Thanks, Mark Brownell Gizmotron Graphics ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 11:58 AM, Mark Brownell wrote: 2.) I noticed that it won't work with multiple words or empty space between characters. I would like to work with the numericle offset of characters and place that info gathered into an array if possible. Would offset() do what you want? I would expect this to be faster, since going to the start position will have constant time. (Your method probably has mc^2 time, call it E ;-), where m is the number of words to find and c is the length of your string in characters. Using offset() should have mc time. Why squared? I'm just guessing, but I assume wordOffset() has to count up to the starting word each time.) Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 12:24 PM, Dar Scott wrote: (Your method probably has mc^2 time, call it E ;-), I think got this wrong. When I saw the mc^2 pun, my brain turned off. In any case, my guess is that offset will be faster. Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
Wow! 63 milliseconds; 206 hits; 390345 characters ...looks like I have a very fast parser. It even works well with empty space, it gives me exactly what I needed. The array contains all first character numerical valuse for each hit. So what about multiple OS uses for the licensed person of the single pro version license? -- anyone? Thanks for the help, offset() did the trick. on 1/6/03 2:46 PM, Mark Brownell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just did an exact duplicate test in Director using the textCruncher Xtra where the same 400 kbyt text doc took 2 ticks to build my array. It also handle any combination of characters as the text to find. I will look into offset() to see if I can get both things working the way I want it. When I did this in Realbasic I got almost the same results as textCruncher Xtra. I believe that all it is is part of the string class in C++ being added as an Xtra, in Director. I hope I can build this fast parsing system becuse I like what I have seen so far in RR. on 1/6/03 2:24 PM, Dar Scott at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 11:58 AM, Mark Brownell wrote: 2.) I noticed that it won't work with multiple words or empty space between characters. I would like to work with the numericle offset of characters and place that info gathered into an array if possible. Would offset() do what you want? I would expect this to be faster, since going to the start position will have constant time. (Your method probably has mc^2 time, call it E ;-), where m is the number of words to find and c is the length of your string in characters. Using offset() should have mc time. Why squared? I'm just guessing, but I assume wordOffset() has to count up to the starting word each time.) Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
At 10:58 AM -0800 1/6/03, Mark Brownell wrote: 3.) I have an off-topic question about a single user pro-license. If I get that version does it mean that I can use it on Mac Windows to debug on those OS Yes. (Also Unix.) The license fee covers development and deployment on all supported platforms, and you only pay one fee. -- Jeanne A. E. DeVoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Runtime Revolution Limited - The Solution for Software Development http://www.runrev.com/ ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 01:12 PM, Mark Brownell wrote: Wow! 63 milliseconds; 206 hits; 390345 characters ...looks like I have a very fast parser. You might be able to tweak out a few more milliseconds. Consider using for instead of with or making the with work harder for you. It even works well with empty space, it gives me exactly what I needed. This may work OK for a single space character, but you may have problems with white space in general. You may want to look closer at this. You may need to split up some of your multiword words. Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?
Mark, That one's easy... you buy one license, you get all the platforms. Neat, huh? :-) Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ - Original Message - From: Mark Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed? Wow! 63 milliseconds; 206 hits; 390345 characters ...looks like I have a very fast parser. It even works well with empty space, it gives me exactly what I needed. The array contains all first character numerical valuse for each hit. So what about multiple OS uses for the licensed person of the single pro version license? -- anyone? Thanks for the help, offset() did the trick. on 1/6/03 2:46 PM, Mark Brownell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just did an exact duplicate test in Director using the textCruncher Xtra where the same 400 kbyt text doc took 2 ticks to build my array. It also handle any combination of characters as the text to find. I will look into offset() to see if I can get both things working the way I want it. When I did this in Realbasic I got almost the same results as textCruncher Xtra. I believe that all it is is part of the string class in C++ being added as an Xtra, in Director. I hope I can build this fast parsing system becuse I like what I have seen so far in RR. on 1/6/03 2:24 PM, Dar Scott at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 11:58 AM, Mark Brownell wrote: 2.) I noticed that it won't work with multiple words or empty space between characters. I would like to work with the numericle offset of characters and place that info gathered into an array if possible. Would offset() do what you want? I would expect this to be faster, since going to the start position will have constant time. (Your method probably has mc^2 time, call it E ;-), where m is the number of words to find and c is the length of your string in characters. Using offset() should have mc time. Why squared? I'm just guessing, but I assume wordOffset() has to count up to the starting word each time.) Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Timing (was wordOffset, repeat loop, speed?)
Thanks, Dar Ken; big time. ... time for the 49'rs, Mark ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
