I wish sometimes that we could actually talk because typing can become cumbersome when trying to convey ideas. But basically imagine that I have a yellow marble laying on a map, and I want to know how many blue marbles lay within a mile of that marble. I go through all the conditionals to make sure that it is a round blue marble, and if it is, I calculate the distance between the yellow and blue marble, and if it is less than a mile, I record the distance to a sparse array. Because of your guy's suggestions, I now also add it to the sparse array in 2 places, because if I know the distance between the yellow and blue marble, I also know the distance from the blue to the yellow marble. So now I am doing half the number of distance calculations, but have added the overhead of placing and getting information from a new array to be evaluated later. None of the averages, medians, and other calculations that I need to do can be done at this time because we have made the sacrifice of increasing speed.
Now I go to the next record, but this time it is a red square and it is looking for all of the green squares within a mile of it. So I HAVE to go through all of the records again with respect to what the new record specifies. Now, once all distances have been claculated, I can go back through the sparse array and if a distance has been recorded, calculate the averages and sums for that particular record. So, yes, we could probably get it closer to a minute if distance calculations were all we had to do, but a lot of numbers have to be calculated, and they have to be calculated with respect to the target record. Just because we are cutting down the number of distance calculations does not change the fact that other numbers have to be calculated in addition to the distance for every record. -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/Workers-and-Speed-tp13098p13230.html Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
