Wagner, David --- Senior Programmer Analyst --- WGO wrote:
On 4/1/06, Frank Bax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:59 PM 3/31/06, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:45 -0800, Tom Phoenix wrote:
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array.
If at any time you
On 4/1/06, Frank Bax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:59 PM 3/31/06, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:45 -0800, Tom Phoenix wrote:
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array. If
at any time you have 2000 items in the array, sort them and discard
On 4/1/06, Frank Bax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:59 PM 3/31/06, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:45 -0800, Tom Phoenix wrote:
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array. If
at any time you have 2000 items in the array, sort them and discard
At 06:59 PM 3/31/06, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:45 -0800, Tom Phoenix wrote:
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array. If
at any time you have 2000 items in the array, sort them and discard
any you don't want to keep.
$#data = 999 if
On Sunday 02 April 2006 02:57, Frank Bax wrote:
At the moment, the array is left unsorted. If I use a sorted array, it
needs to resorted every time a worst entry is replaced by a new
entry. Can I avoid sorting the array every iteration?
Have you considered using a data structure that is
Robin Sheat wrote:
: Have you considered using a data structure that is always sorted,
: such as a tree or a priority queue (backed by a heap or
: something).
From the Heap::Simple docs:
A heap is a partially sorted structure where it's always easy
to extract the smallest element. If
On Sat, 2006-01-04 at 09:57 -0500, Frank Bax wrote:
I'm not the OP, but I have a script with a similar problem. The script has
some logic that generates many (thousands of billions) of combinations from
a little bit of data and only the best 100 combos are output. For each
combination
I need to handle a set of numbers where I want only the lowest 1000.
There will be no rhyme or reason as the data comes in. I will do some
calculations and take this total against the array or hash or ? The
number of calculations will be tremendous and either I come up with a way
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:12 -0800, Wagner, David --- Senior Programmer
Analyst --- WGO wrote:
I need to handle a set of numbers where I want only the lowest 1000.
There will be no rhyme or reason as the data comes in. I will do some
calculations and take this total against the array or
On 3/31/06, Wagner, David --- Senior Programmer Analyst --- WGO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to handle a set of numbers where I want only the
lowest 1000. There will be no rhyme or reason as the data comes in.
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array. If
at
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:45 -0800, Tom Phoenix wrote:
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array. If
at any time you have 2000 items in the array, sort them and discard
any you don't want to keep.
$#data = 999 if $#data 999;# OBperl: one way to discard
Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 15:45 -0800, Tom Phoenix wrote:
You should loop over the input, pushing each item on to an array. If
at any time you have 2000 items in the array, sort them and discard
any you don't want to keep.
$#data = 999 if $#data 999;# OBperl:
On Fri, 2006-31-03 at 17:15 -0700, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
Unless the sort optimizes out the need to loop through so many elements,
and/or is written at a lower level. If each new item that is entered
goes in the last place then you have to loop over every element of the
list every time. But
13 matches
Mail list logo
