Alex Harui wrote > IMO, the new loop is constructed in a way that it will only test a vs b > and never b vs a, so there is no need to store things for the b vs a test.
Yes, but the point that I am trying to make is that I can only calculate the test A sums and averages against all the other records at this point. All I know about the Test B at this point is that it is a certain distance from Test A, but what about the distance between Test B and all of the other records and all the sums and averages that I want to keep for Test B? I don't have them at the time. So we are cutting the number of distance calculations in half, but have to go through them again so that the sums/averages for each and every record can be ascertained against all the other records. I definitely like the hash idea and want to learn more about it. Do you have a book or any links that you recommend to learn a lot about hash functions? -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/Workers-and-Speed-tp13098p13232.html Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
