Search Results

Search found 196 results on 8 pages for 'iterative deepening'.

Page 1/8 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

• Iterative Conversion

  - by stuart ramage

  Question Received: I am toying with the idea of migrating the current information first and the remainder of the history at a later date. I have heard that the conversion tool copes with this, but haven't found any information on how it does. Answer: The Toolkit will support iterative conversions as long as the original master data key tables (the CK_* tables) are not cleared down from Staging (the already converted Transactional Data would need to be cleared down) and the Production instance being migrated into is actually Production (we have migrated into a pre-prod instance in the past and then unloaded this and loaded it into the real PROD instance, but this will not work for your situation. You need to be migrating directly into your intended environment). In this case the migration tool will still know all about the original keys and the generated keys for the primary objects (Account, SA, etc.) and as such it will be able to link the data converted as part of a second pass onto these entities. It should be noted that this may result in the original opening balances potentially being displayed with an incorrect value (if we are talking about Financial Transactions) and also that care will have to be taken to ensure that all related objects are aligned (eg. A Bill must have a set to bill segments, meter reads and a financial transactions, and these entities cannot exist independantly). It should also be noted that subsequent runs of the conversion tool would need to be 'trimmed' to ensure that they are only doing work on the objects affected. You would not want to revalidate and migrate all Person, Account, SA, SA/SP, SP and Premise details since this information has already been processed, but you would definitely want to run the affected transactional record validation and keygen processes. There is no real "hard-and-fast" rule around this processing since is it specific to each implmentations needs, but the majority of the effort required should be detailed in the Conversion Tool section of the online help (under Adminstration/ The Conversion Tool). The major rule is to ensure that you only run the steps and validation/keygen steps that you need and do not do a complete rerun for your subsequent conversion.

  Read the article

• Difference between Breadth First Search, and Iterative deepening

  - by theraven

  I understand BFS, and DFS, but for the life of me cannot figure out the difference between iterative deepening and BFS. Apparently Iterative deepening has the same memory usage as DFS, but I am unable to see how this is possible, as it just keeps expanding like BFS. If anyone can clarify that would be awesome. tree to work on if required: A / \ B C / / \ D E F

  Read the article

• Hadoop: Iterative MapReduce Performance

  - by S.N

  Is it correct to say that the parallel computation with iterative MapReduce can be justified only when the training data size is too large for the non-parallel computation for the same logic? I am aware that the there is overhead for starting MapReduce jobs. This can be critical for overall execution time when a large number of iterations is required. I can imagine that the sequential computation is faster than the parallel computation with iterative MapReduce as long as the memory allows to hold a data set in many cases. Is it the only benefit to use the iterative MapReduce? If not, what are the other benefits could be?

  Read the article

• Iterative and Incremental Principle Series 1: The Dreaded Assignment

  - by llowitz

  A few days ago, while making breakfast for my teenage son… he turned to me and happily exclaimed, “I really like how my high school Government class assigns our reading homework.  In middle school, we had to read a chapter each week.  Everyone dreaded it.  In high school, our teacher assigns us a section or two every day.  We still end up reading a chapter each week, but this way is so much easier and I’m actually remembered what I’ve read!” Wow!  Once I recovered from my initial shock that my high school son actually initiated conversation with me, it struck me that he was describing one of the five basic OUM principles -- Iterative and Incremental.   Not only did he describe how his teacher divided a week long assignment into daily increments, but he went on to communicate some of the major benefits of having shorter, more achievable milestones.  I started to think about other applications of the iterative and incremental approach and I realized that I had incorporated this approach when I recently rededicated myself to physical fitness.  Join me over the next four days as I present an Iterative and Incremental blog series where I relate my personal experience incorporating the iterative and incremental approach and the benefits that I achieved.

  Read the article

• Iterative and Incremental Principle Series 3: The Implementation Plan (a.k.a The Fitness Plan)

  - by llowitz

  Welcome back to the Iterative and Incremental Blog series.  Yesterday, I demonstrated how shorter interval sets allowed me to focus on my fitness goals and achieve success.  Likewise, in a project setting, shorter milestones allow the project team to maintain focus and experience a sense of accomplishment throughout the project lifecycle.  Today, I will discuss project planning and how to effectively plan your iterations. Admittedly, there is more to applying the iterative and incremental principle than breaking long durations into multiple, shorter ones.  In order to effectively apply the iterative and incremental approach, one should start by creating an implementation plan.   In a project setting, the Implementation Plan is a high level plan that focuses on milestones, objectives, and the number of iterations.  It is the plan that is typically developed at the start of an engagement identifying the project phases and milestones.  When the iterative and incremental principle is applied, the Implementation Plan also identified the number of iterations planned for each phase.  The implementation plan does not include the detailed plan for the iterations, as this detail is determined prior to each iteration start during Iteration Planning.  An individual iteration plan is created for each project iteration. For my fitness regime, I also created an “Implementation Plan” for my weekly exercise.   My high level plan included exercising 6 days a week, and since I cross train, trying not to repeat the same exercise two days in a row.  Because running on the hills outside is the most difficult and consequently, the most effective exercise, my implementation plan includes running outside at least 2 times a week.   Regardless of the exercise selected, I always apply a series of 6-minute interval sets.  I never plan what I will do each day in advance because there are too many changing factors that need to be considered before that level of detail is determined.  If my Implementation Plan included details on the exercise I was to perform each day of the week, it is quite certain that I would be unable to follow my plan to that level.  It is unrealistic to plan each day of the week without considering the unique circumstances at that time.  For example, what is the weather?  Are there are conflicting schedule commitments?  Are there injuries that need to be considered?  Likewise, in a project setting, it is best to plan for the iteration details prior to its start. Join me for tomorrow’s blog where I will discuss when and how to plan the details of your iterations.

  Read the article

• Iterative and Incremental Principle Series 5: Conclusion

  - by llowitz

  Thank you for joining me in the final segment in the Iterative and Incremental series.  During yesterday’s segment, I discussed Iteration Planning, and specifically how I planned my daily exercise (iteration) each morning by assessing multiple factors, while following my overall Implementation plan. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, regardless of the type of exercise or how many increment sets I decide to complete each day, I apply the 6 minute interval sets and a timebox approach.  When the 6 minutes are up, I stop the interval, even if I have more to give, saving the extra energy to apply to my next interval set.   Timeboxes are used to manage iterations.  Once the pre-determined iteration duration is reached – whether it is 2 weeks or 6 weeks or somewhere in between-- the iteration is complete.  Iteration group items (requirements) not fully addressed, in relation to the iteration goal, are addressed in the next iteration.  This approach helps eliminate the “rolling deadline” and better allows the project manager to assess the project progress earlier and more frequently than in traditional approaches. Not only do smaller, more frequent milestones allow project managers to better assess potential schedule risks and slips, but process improvement is encouraged.  Even in my simple example, I learned, after a few interval sets, not to sprint uphill!  Now I plan my route more efficiently to ensure that I sprint on a level surface to reduce of the risk of not completing my increment.  Project managers have often told me that they used an iterative and incremental approach long before OUM.   An effective project manager naturally organizes project work consistent with this principle, but a key benefit of OUM is that it formalizes this approach so it happens by design rather than by chance.    I hope this series has encouraged you to think about additional ways you can incorporate the iterative and incremental principle into your daily and project life.  I further hope that you will share your thoughts and experiences with the rest of us.

  Read the article

• Iterative and Incremental Principle Series 2: Finding Focus

  - by llowitz

  Welcome back to the second blog in a five part series where I recount my personal experience with applying the Iterative and Incremental principle to my daily life.  As you recall from part one of the series, a conversation with my son prompted me to think about practical applications of the Iterative and Incremental approach and I realized I had incorporated this principle in my exercise regime.    I have been a runner since college but about a year ago, I sustained an injury that prevented me from exercising.  When I was sufficiently healed, I decided to pick it up again.  Knowing it was unrealistic to pick up where I left off, I set a goal of running 3 miles or approximately for 30 minutes.    I was excited to get back into running and determined to meet my goal.  Unfortunately, after what felt like a lifetime, I looked at my watch and realized that I had 27 agonizing minutes to go!  My determination waned and my positive “I can do it” attitude was overridden by thoughts of “This is impossible”.   My initial focus and excitement was not sustained so I never met my goal.   Understanding that the 30 minute run was simply too much for me mentally, I changed my approach.   I decided to try interval training.  For each interval, I planned to walk for 3 minutes, then jog for 2 minutes, and finally sprint for 1 minute, and I planned to repeat this pattern 5 times.  I found that each interval set was challenging, yet achievable, leaving me excited and invigorated for my next interval.  I easily completed five intervals – or 30 minutes!!  My sense of accomplishment soared. What does this have to do with OUM?  Have you heard the saying -- “How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time!”?  This adage certainly applies in my example and in an OUM systems implementation.  It is easier to manage, track progress and maintain team focus for weeks at a time, rather than for months at a time.   With shorter milestones, the project team focuses on the iteration goal.  Once the iteration goal is met, a sense of accomplishment is experience and the team can be re-focused on a fresh, yet achievable new challenge.  Join me tomorrow as I expand the concept of Iterative and incremental by taking a step back to explore the recommended approach for planning your iterations.

  Read the article

• How to charge in agile iterative approach?

  - by user1620696

  I have a doubt about budgeting when working with agile iterative approach. If I understood well, in agile at the end of each iteration we have usable product, so we have some of the requirements met and then some part of the software will be already working. How do we charge for our work in this methodology? Do we charge per iteration, i.e. charge per major requirements being met, or just charge the customer when the software is indeed finished and then receive for everything at once?

  Read the article

• Change a Recursive function that has a for loop in it into an iterative function?

  - by Bill

  So I have this function that I'm trying to convert from a recursive algorithm to an iterative algorithm. I'm not even sure if I have the right subproblems but this seems to determined what I need in the correct way, but recursion can't be used you need to use dynamic programming so I need to change it to iterative bottom up or top down dynamic programming. The basic recursive function looks like this: Recursion(i,j) { if(i>j) return 0; else { //This finds the maximum value for all possible subproblems and returns that for this problem for(int x = i; x < j; x++) { if(some subsection i to x plus recursion(x+1,j) is > current max) max = some subsection i to x plus recursion(x+1,j) } } } This is the general idea, but since recursions typically don't have for loops in them I'm not sure exactly how I would convert this to iterative. Does anyone have any ideas?

  Read the article

• How to store visited states in iterative deepening / depth limited search?

  - by colinfang

  Update: Search for the first solution. for a normal Depth First Search it is simple, just use a hashset bool DFS (currentState) = { if (myHashSet.Contains(currentState)) { return; } else { myHashSet.Add(currentState); } if (IsSolution(currentState) return true; else { for (var nextState in GetNextStates(currentState)) if (DFS(nextState)) return true; } return false; } However, when it becomes depth limited, i cannot simply do this bool DFS (currentState, maxDepth) = { if (maxDepth = 0) return false; if (myHashSet.Contains(currentState)) { return; } else { myHashSet.Add(currentState); } if (IsSolution(currentState) return true; else { for (var nextState in GetNextStates(currentState)) if (DFS(nextState, maxDepth - 1)) return true; } return false; } Because then it is not going to do a complete search (in a sense of always be able to find a solution if there is any) before maxdepth How should I fix it? Would it add more space complexity to the algorithm? Or it just doesn't require to memoize the state at all. Update: for example, a decision tree is the following: A - B - C - D - E - A | F - G (Goal) Starting from state A. and G is a goal state. Clearly there is a solution under depth 3. However, using my implementation under depth 4, if the direction of search happens to be A(0) -> B(1) -> C(2) -> D(3) -> E(4) -> F(5) exceeds depth, then it would do back track to A, however E is visited, it would ignore the check direction A - E - F - G

  Read the article

• How can I make a recursive version of my iterative method?

  - by user247679

  Greetings. I am trying to write a recursive function in Java that prints the numbers one through n. (n being the parameter that you send the function.) An iterative solution is pretty straightforward: public static void printNumbers(int n){ for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++){ System.out.println(i); i++; } As a novice programmer, I'm having troubles figuring out how a recursive version of this method would work. Any bright ideas? Thanks for reading my problem!

  Read the article

• Java iterative vs recursive

  - by user1389813

  Can anyone explain why the following recursive method is faster than the iterative one (Both are doing it string concatenation) ? Isn't the iterative approach suppose to beat up the recursive one ? plus each recursive call adds a new layer on top of the stack which can be very space inefficient. private static void string_concat(StringBuilder sb, int count){ if(count >= 9999) return; string_concat(sb.append(count), count+1); } public static void main(String [] arg){ long s = System.currentTimeMillis(); StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); for(int i = 0; i < 9999; i++){ sb.append(i); } System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis()-s); s = System.currentTimeMillis(); string_concat(new StringBuilder(),0); System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis()-s); } I ran the program multiple time, and the recursive one always ends up 3-4 times faster than the iterative one. What could be the main reason there that is causing the iterative one slower ?

  Read the article

• Recursive vs. Iterative algorithms

  - by teehoo

  I'm implementing the Euclidian algorithm for finding the GCD (Greatest Common Divisor) of two integers. Two sample implementations are given: Recursive and Iterative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm#Implementations My Question: In school I remember my professors talking about recursive functions like they were all the rage, but I have one doubt. Compared to an iterative version don't recursive algorithms take up more stack space and therefore much more memory? Also, because calling a function requires uses some overhead for initialization, aren't recursive algorithms more slower than their iterative counterpart?

  Read the article

• Scaling an iterative, bitwise algorithm to solve the Towers of Hanoi using X discs and Y towers

  - by Robb

  I like the algorithm mentioned in this question: "How does this work? Weird Towers of Hanoi Solution" http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2209860/how-does-this-work-weird-towers-of-hanoi-solution Is there any way to scale that non-recursive solution of Towers of Hanoi to use X disks and Y towers, with towers represented as stacks?

  Read the article

• How should I pitch moving to an agile/iterative development cycle with mandated 3-week deployments?

  - by Wayne M

  I'm part of a small team of four, and I'm the unofficial team lead (I'm lead in all but title, basically). We've largely been a "cowboy" environment, with no architecture or structure and everyone doing their own thing. Previously, our production deployments would be every few months without being on a set schedule, as things were added/removed to the task list of each developer. Recently, our CIO (semi-technical but not really a programmer) decided we will do deployments every three weeks; because of this I instantly thought that adopting an iterative development process (not necessarily full-blown Agile/XP, which would be a huge thing to convince everyone else to do) would go a long way towards helping manage expectations properly so there isn't this far-fetched idea that any new feature will be done in three weeks. IMO the biggest hurdle is that we don't have ANY kind of development approach in place right now (among other things like no CI or automated tests whatsoever). We don't even use Waterfall, we use "Tell Developer X to do a task, expect him to do everything and get it done". Are there any pointers that would help me start to ease us towards an iterative approach and A) Get the other developers on board with it and B) Get management to understand how iterative works? So far my idea involves trying to set up a CI server and get our build process automated (it takes about 10-20 minutes right now to simply build the application to put it on our development server), since pushing tests and/or TDD will be met with a LOT of resistance at this point, and constantly force us to break larger projects into smaller chunks that could be done iteratively in a three-week cycle; my only concern is that, unless I'm misunderstanding, an agile/iterative process may or may not release the software (depending on the project scope you might have "working" software after three weeks, but there isn't enough of it that works to let users make use of it), while I think the expectation here from management is that there will always be something "ready to go" in three weeks, and that disconnect could cause problems. On that note, is there any literature or references that explains the agile/iterative approach from a business standpoint? Everything I've seen only focuses on the developers, how to do it, but nothing seems to describe it from the perspective of actually getting the buy-in from the businesspeople.

  Read the article

• Iterative and incremental development - difference at all?

  - by HollerTrain

  Are Iterative and incremental software development models the same premise, just known as two different things?

  Read the article

• Iterative Cartesian Product in Java

  - by akappa

  Hi, I want to compute the cartesian product of an arbitrary number of nonempty sets in Java. I've wrote that iterative code... public static <T> List<Set<T>> cartesianProduct(List<Set<T>> list) { List<Iterator<T>> iterators = new ArrayList<Iterator<T>>(list.size()); List<T> elements = new ArrayList<T>(list.size()); List<Set<T>> toRet = new ArrayList<Set<T>>(); for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) { iterators.add(list.get(i).iterator()); elements.add(iterators.get(i).next()); } for (int j = 1; j >= 0;) { toRet.add(Sets.newHashSet(elements)); for (j = iterators.size()-1; j >= 0 && !iterators.get(j).hasNext(); j--) { iterators.set(j, list.get(j).iterator()); elements.set(j, iterators.get(j).next()); } elements.set(Math.abs(j), iterators.get(Math.abs(j)).next()); } return toRet; } ...but I found it rather inelegant. Someone has a better, still iterative solution? A solution that uses some wonderful functional-like approach? Otherwise... suggestion about how to improve it? Errors? Thanks :)

  Read the article

• Recognizing Tail-recursive functions with Flex+Bison and convert code to an Iterative form

  - by Viet

  I'm writing a calculator with an ability to accept new function definitions. Being aware of the need of newbies to try recursive functions such as Fibonacci, I would like my calculator to be able to recognize Tail-recursive functions with Flex + Bison and convert code to an Iterative form. I'm using Flex & Bison to do the job. If you have any hints or ideas, I welcome them warmly. Thanks!

  Read the article

• I need to insert multiple rows at once in sql server ..based on an iterative value

  - by sajad

  Hi friends, I want to insert 3 rows at a time in a table based on select statement.. consider the query insert into tblTemp ( a,b ) select a, b from tblTemp2 This lets me insert one row in tblTemp.. my requirement is to add 3 rows with iterative values a,a+1,a+2 for each b inserted.

  Read the article

• Iterative / Additive MD5

  - by Andrew Robinson

  I need to generate a checksum over a dictionary. Keys and Values. Is there any simple way to accomplish this in an iterative way. foreach(var item in dic.Keys) checksum += checksum(dic[item]) + checksum(item); In this case, keys and values could be converted to strings, concatinated and then a single checksum applied over these but is there a better way? Ideally MD5 but other options could work. Using this to validate data that is passed over a couple of storage methods. The checksum is then encrypted along with some other information (using AES) so I am not horribly worried about an ideal, unbreakable checksum.

  Read the article

• Moving Forward with Code Iteration

  - by rcapote

  There are times when working on my programming projects, and I get to a point where I'm ready to move on to the next part of my program. However, when I sit down to implement this new feature I get stuck, in a sense. It's not that I don't know how to implement the feature, it's that I get stuck on figuring out the best way to implement said feature. So I sit back for a day or two and let the ideas ferment until I am comfortable with a design. I get worried that I may not write something as well as it could be, or that I might have to go back and rework the whole thing; so I put it off. This is a big reason why I've never really finished many personal projects. Anyone else experience this, and how do you keep your self moving forward in your project?

  Read the article

• Trend analysis using iterative value increments

  - by Dave Jarvis

  We have configured iReport to generate the following graph: The real data points are in blue, the trend line is green. The problems include: Too many data points for the trend line Trend line does not follow a Bezier curve (spline) The source of the problem is with the incrementer class. The incrementer is provided with the data points iteratively. There does not appear to be a way to get the set of data. The code that calculates the trend line looks as follows: import java.math.BigDecimal; import net.sf.jasperreports.engine.fill.*; /** * Used by an iReport variable to increment its average. */ public class MovingAverageIncrementer implements JRIncrementer { private BigDecimal average; private int incr = 0; /** * Instantiated by the MovingAverageIncrementerFactory class. */ public MovingAverageIncrementer() { } /** * Returns the newly incremented value, which is calculated by averaging * the previous value from the previous call to this method. * * @param jrFillVariable Unused. * @param object New data point to average. * @param abstractValueProvider Unused. * @return The newly incremented value. */ public Object increment( JRFillVariable jrFillVariable, Object object, AbstractValueProvider abstractValueProvider ) { BigDecimal value = new BigDecimal( ( ( Number )object ).doubleValue() ); // Average every 10 data points // if( incr % 10 == 0 ) { setAverage( ( value.add( getAverage() ).doubleValue() / 2.0 ) ); } incr++; return getAverage(); } /** * Changes the value that is the moving average. * @param average The new moving average value. */ private void setAverage( BigDecimal average ) { this.average = average; } /** * Returns the current moving average average. * @return Value used for plotting on a report. */ protected BigDecimal getAverage() { if( this.average == null ) { this.average = new BigDecimal( 0 ); } return this.average; } /** Helper method. */ private void setAverage( double d ) { setAverage( new BigDecimal( d ) ); } } How would you create a smoother and more accurate representation of the trend line?

  Read the article

• Iterative printing over two data types in Python

  - by old Ixfoxleigh

  I often browse freely-available art on the web. Actually, I can't think of a better use for the internet than to turn it into a gigantic art gallery. When I encounter a set of pieces I quite like, I download them all to my hard drive. wget makes that easy, especially in combination with Python's print function, and I use this all the time to make a list of URLs that I then wget. Say I need to download a list of jpegs that run from art0 to art100 in the directory 'art,' I just tell python for i in range(0,101): print "http://somegallery/somedirectory/art", i So, this is probably a fairly simple operation in Python, and after a find-and-replace to remove whitespace, it's just a matter of using wget -i, but in days before I knew any Python I'd slavishly right-click and save. Now I've got a bunch of files from Fredericks & Freiser gallery in New York that all go a(1-14), b(1-14), c(1-14), etc., up to the letter g. I could do that in 7 goes, and it would take me less time than it took to write this SO question. That said, I want to deepen my knowledge of Python. So, given the letters a-g, how do I print a mapping of each letter to the integers 1-14?

  Read the article

• Finding if a string is an iterative substring?

  - by EsotericMe

  I have a string S. How can I find if the string follows S = nT. Examples: Function should return true if 1) S = "abab" 2) S = "abcdabcd" 3) S = "abcabcabc" 4) S = "zzxzzxzzx" But if S="abcb" returns false. I though maybe we can repeatedly call KMP on substrings of S and then decide. eg: for "abab": call on KMP on "a". it returns 2(two instances). now 2*len("a")!=len(s) call on KMP on "ab". it returns 2. now 2*len("ab")==len(s) so return true Can you suggest any better algorithms?

  Read the article

• Iterative Reduction to Null Matrix

  - by user1459032

  Here's the problem: I'm given a matrix like Input: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 At each step, I need to find a "second" matrix of 1's and 0's with no two 1's on the same row or column. Then, I'll subtract the second matrix from the original matrix. I will repeat the process until I get a matrix with all 0's. Furthermore, I need to take the least possible number of steps. I need to print all the "second" matrices in O(n) time. In the above example I can get to the null matrix in 3 steps by subtracting these three matrices in order: Expected output: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 I have coded an attempt, in which I am finding the first maximum value and creating the second matrices based on the index of that value. But for the above input I am getting 4 output matrices, which is wrong: My output: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 My solution works for most of the test cases but fails for the one given above. Can someone give me some pointers on how to proceed, or find an algorithm that guarantees optimality? Test case that works: Input: 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 Output 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >