Search Results

Search found 4580 results on 184 pages for 'faster'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 16/184 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • Is 768Mb RAM @ 333Mhz faster or slower than 512Mb RAM @ 400Mhz?

    - by Peter
    I have a simple question, but am not a hardware specialist. I have a small low-budget server with 512 Mb SD RAM, 400 Mhz. I have an extra 256 lying around, but it's 333 Mhz. I know I can add it to the system, and that it would automatically adjust the 400Mhz to 333Mhz. But my question is, which is faster/better for performance: 512 at 400Mhz, or 768 at 333Mhz?

    Read the article

  • Which is faster in Python: x**.5 or math.sqrt(x)?

    - by Casey
    I've been wondering this for some time. As the title say, which is faster, the actual function or simply raising to the half power? UPDATE This is not a matter of premature optimization. This is simply a question of how the underlying code actually works. What is the theory of how Python code works? I sent Guido van Rossum an email cause I really wanted to know the differences in these methods. My email: There are at least 3 ways to do a square root in Python: math.sqrt, the '**' operator and pow(x,.5). I'm just curious as to the differences in the implementation of each of these. When it comes to efficiency which is better? His response: pow and ** are equivalent; math.sqrt doesn't work for complex numbers, and links to the C sqrt() function. As to which one is faster, I have no idea...

    Read the article

  • Does a .NET 4.0 website load faster for a reason?

    - by Clarence Klopfstein
    I have been using DotNetBlogEngine for many years, and today my host (JodoHost.com) officially turned on support for .NET 4.0. What I've noticed immediately is that the website loads tremendously faster on the first load, subsequent loads are only slightly faster. The website is compiled as a .NET 2.0 web application. Is there a known reason for this performance increase? Was there a change in the .NET 4.0 framework that improved the initial load time of websites into an application pool? This is hosted on a 2003 server. Here is the site for reference: http://www.ocdprogrammer.com

    Read the article

  • Why is insertion into my tree faster on sorted input than random input?

    - by Juliet
    Now I've always heard binary search trees are faster to build from randomly selected data than ordered data, simply because ordered data requires explicit rebalancing to keep the tree height at a minimum. Recently I implemented an immutable treap, a special kind of binary search tree which uses randomization to keep itself relatively balanced. In contrast to what I expected, I found I can consistently build a treap about 2x faster and generally better balanced from ordered data than unordered data -- and I have no idea why. Here's my treap implementation: http://pastebin.com/VAfSJRwZ And here's a test program: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Diagnostics; namespace ConsoleApplication1 { class Program { static Random rnd = new Random(); const int ITERATION_COUNT = 20; static void Main(string[] args) { List<double> rndTimes = new List<double>(); List<double> orderedTimes = new List<double>(); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(50, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(100, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(200, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(400, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(800, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(1000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(2000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(4000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(8000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(16000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(32000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(64000, RandomInsert)); rndTimes.Add(TimeIt(128000, RandomInsert)); string rndTimesAsString = string.Join("\n", rndTimes.Select(x => x.ToString()).ToArray()); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(50, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(100, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(200, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(400, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(800, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(1000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(2000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(4000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(8000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(16000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(32000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(64000, OrderedInsert)); orderedTimes.Add(TimeIt(128000, OrderedInsert)); string orderedTimesAsString = string.Join("\n", orderedTimes.Select(x => x.ToString()).ToArray()); Console.WriteLine("Done"); } static double TimeIt(int insertCount, Action<int> f) { Console.WriteLine("TimeIt({0}, {1})", insertCount, f.Method.Name); List<double> times = new List<double>(); for (int i = 0; i < ITERATION_COUNT; i++) { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); f(insertCount); sw.Stop(); times.Add(sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds); } return times.Average(); } static void RandomInsert(int insertCount) { Treap<double> tree = new Treap<double>((x, y) => x.CompareTo(y)); for (int i = 0; i < insertCount; i++) { tree = tree.Insert(rnd.NextDouble()); } } static void OrderedInsert(int insertCount) { Treap<double> tree = new Treap<double>((x, y) => x.CompareTo(y)); for(int i = 0; i < insertCount; i++) { tree = tree.Insert(i + rnd.NextDouble()); } } } } And here's a chart comparing random and ordered insertion times in milliseconds: Insertions Random Ordered RandomTime / OrderedTime 50 1.031665 0.261585 3.94 100 0.544345 1.377155 0.4 200 1.268320 0.734570 1.73 400 2.765555 1.639150 1.69 800 6.089700 3.558350 1.71 1000 7.855150 4.704190 1.67 2000 17.852000 12.554065 1.42 4000 40.157340 22.474445 1.79 8000 88.375430 48.364265 1.83 16000 197.524000 109.082200 1.81 32000 459.277050 238.154405 1.93 64000 1055.508875 512.020310 2.06 128000 2481.694230 1107.980425 2.24 I don't see anything in the code which makes ordered input asymptotically faster than unordered input, so I'm at a loss to explain the difference. Why is it so much faster to build a treap from ordered input than random input?

    Read the article

  • Is it faster to do the pages first and CSS second, or should I do them at the same time?

    - by Fred Haslam
    I have been tasked with building a new web project from scratch, with the exception of reusing CSS files (the look and feel) from an existing project. In the past I have always completed development of the functionality and the web-ui before considering the appearance. This is mostly due to CSS development overlapping with the tail end of the project. I now have the opportunity to integrate a static set of CSS as I build the application. I have no experience with this circumstance. Would it be faster to develop the project and web-pages first, then integrate the CSS; or would it be faster to integrate the CSS as part of page development?

    Read the article

  • Which SQL query is faster? Filter on Join criteria or Where clause?

    - by Jon Erickson
    Compare these 2 queries. Is it faster to put the filter on the join criteria or in the were clause. I have always felt that it is faster on the join criteria because it reduces the result set at the soonest possible moment, but I don't know for sure. I'm going to build some tests to see, but I also wanted to get opinions on which would is clearer to read as well. Query 1 SELECT * FROM TableA a INNER JOIN TableXRef x ON a.ID = x.TableAID INNER JOIN TableB b ON x.TableBID = b.ID WHERE a.ID = 1 /* <-- Filter here? */ Query 2 SELECT * FROM TableA a INNER JOIN TableXRef x ON a.ID = x.TableAID AND a.ID = 1 /* <-- Or filter here? */ INNER JOIN TableB b ON x.TableBID = b.ID

    Read the article

  • Can I get a faster output pipe than /dev/null ?

    - by naugtur
    Hi I am running a huge task [automated translation scripted with perl + database etc.] to run for about 2 weeks non-stop. While thinking how to speed it up I saw that the translator outputs everything (all translated sentences, all info on the way) to STDOUT all the time. This makes it work visibly slower when I get the output on the console. I obviously piped the output to /dev/null, but then I thought "could there be something even faster?" It's so much output that it'd really make a difference. And that's the question I'm asking You, because as far as I know there is nothing faster... (But I'm far from being a guru having used linux on a daily basis only last 3 years)

    Read the article

  • Does any faster centralized version control than SVN exists?

    - by Savageman
    Hello, I've been using SVN since a long time and now we're trying on Git. I'm not talking on the centralized / decentralized debate here. My only concern is speed. The latter tool is much faster. But sometimes, I NEED to work with a centralized approach, which is much more simple and less complex than the decentralized one. The learning curve is really fast, which saves a lot of time (while digging into decentralized would lead to a waste of time, given the learning curve is much longer and we encounter more problem when working with it). However, SVN is really slow compared to GIT, and I don't think it has anything to do with the centralized argument. Decentralized systems also have to deal with server connections and file transfert. So I can easilly imagine a faster implementation of centralized version control could exists. Does someone has any clue on this?

    Read the article

  • fetch only first row from oracle - is it faster?

    - by john
    My main goal with this question is optimization and faster run time. After doing lot of processing in the Stored Proc I finally return a count like below: OPEN cv_1 FOR SELECT COUNT(*) num_of_members FROM HOUSEHOLD_MEMBER a, HOUSEHOLD b WHERE RTRIM(LTRIM(a.mbr_last_name)) LIKE v_MBR_LAST_NAME || '%' AND a.number = '01' AND a.code = v_CODE AND a.ssn_head = v_SSN_HEAD AND TO_CHAR( a.mbr_dob, 'MM/DD/YYYY') = v_DOB; But in my code that is calling the SP does not need the actual count. It just cares that count is greater than 1. Question: How can I change this to return just 1 or 0. 1 when count is 0 and 0 when count 1. Will it be faster to do this rather than returning the whole count?

    Read the article

  • In C, would !~b ever be faster than b == 0xff ?

    - by James Morris
    From a long time ago I have a memory which has stuck with me that says comparisons against zero are faster than any other value (ahem Z80). In some C code I'm writing I want to skip values which have all their bits set. Currently the type of these values is char but may change. I have two different alternatives to perform the test: if (!~b) /* skip */ and if (b == 0xff) /* skip */ Apart from the latter making the assumption that b is an 8bit char whereas the former does not, would the former ever be faster due to the old compare to zero optimization trick, or are the CPUs of today way beyond this kind of thing?

    Read the article

  • In PHP is faster to get a value from an if statement or from an array?

    - by Vittorio Vittori
    Maybe this is a stupid question but what is faster? <?php function getCss1 ($id = 0) { if ($id == 1) { return 'red'; } else if ($id == 2) { return 'yellow'; } else if ($id == 3) { return 'green'; } else if ($id == 4) { return 'blue'; } else if ($id == 5) { return 'orange'; } else { return 'grey'; } } function getCss2 ($id = 0) { $css[] = 'grey'; $css[] = 'red'; $css[] = 'yellow'; $css[] = 'green'; $css[] = 'blue'; $css[] = 'orange'; return $css[$id]; } echo getCss1(3); echo getCss2(3); ?> I suspect is faster the if statement but I prefere to ask!

    Read the article

  • I Made Simple Generator,, Is there any faster way ??

    - by Rami Jarrar
    Hi, i do like this: import time f = open('wl4.txt', 'w') hh = 0 ###################################### for n in range(1,5): for l in range(33,127): if n==1: b = chr(l) + '\n' f.write(b) hh += 1 elif n==2: for s0 in range(33, 127): b = chr(l) + chr(s0) + '\n' f.write(b) hh += 1 elif n==3: for s0 in range(33, 127): for s1 in range(33, 127): b = chr(l) + chr(s0) + chr(s1) + '\n' f.write(b) hh += 1 elif n==4: for s0 in range(33, 127): for s1 in range(33, 127): for s2 in range(33,127): b = chr(l) + chr(s0) + chr(s1) + chr(s2) + '\n' f.write(b) hh += 1 ###################################### print "We Made %d Words." %(hh) ###################################### f.close() So, is there any faster method to make it faster,,

    Read the article

  • Which is faster in memory, ints or chars? And file-mapping or chunk reading?

    - by Nick
    Okay, so I've written a (rather unoptimized) program before to encode images to JPEGs, however, now I am working with MPEG-2 transport streams and the H.264 encoded video within them. Before I dive into programming all of this, I am curious what the fastest way to deal with the actual file is. Currently I am file-mapping the .mts file into memory to work on it, although I am not sure if it would be faster to (for example) read 100 MB of the file into memory in chunks and deal with it that way. These files require a lot of bit-shifting and such to read flags, so I am wondering that when I reference some of the memory if it is faster to read 4 bytes at once as an integer or 1 byte as a character. I thought I read somewhere that x86 processors are optimized to a 4-byte granularity, but I'm not sure if this is true... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • how to optimize sql server table for faster response?

    - by Thomas
    i found a in a table there are 50 thousands records and it takes one minute when we fetch data from sql server table just by issuing a sql. there are one primary key that means a already a cluster index is there. i just do not understand why it takes one minute. beside index what are the ways out there to optimize a table to get the data faster. in this situation what i need to do for faster response. also tell me how we can write always a optimize sql. please tell me all the steps in detail for optimization. thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why exactly is server side HTML rendering faster than client side?

    - by mvbl fst
    I am working on a large web site, and we're moving a lot of functionality to the client side (Require.js, Backbone and Handlebars stack). There are even discussions about possibly moving all rendering to the client side. But reading some articles, especially ones about Twitter moving away from client side rendering, which mention that server side is faster / more reliable, I begin to have questions. I don't understand how rendering fairly simple HTML widgets in JS from JSON and templates is a contemporary browser on a dual core CPU with 4-8 GB RAM is any slower than making dozens of includes in your server side app. Are there any actual real life benchmarking figures regarding this? Also, it seems like parsing HTML templates by server side templating engines can't be any faster than rendering same HTML code from a Handlebars template, especially if this is a precomp JS function?

    Read the article

  • Will PHP script running on top of Apache be faster than C# stand alloun programm doing same thing (s

    - by Ole Jak
    I mean PHP scripts on Apache are oriented for many users to use tham at the same time. So will 1000 requests which came at the (relativly) same time be fully responsed faster than C# .Net programm perfoming algorithm 1000 times in while loop? So we input same data, we perform same algorithm, which is written in a wary same way (respecting language diferencis ofcourse), outputing same data (lat us say saving it to file for tham to be relativly equal) Who will be faster on some 1000 times of performing O(NN) algorithm, in which case (if it is possible) one will owerrun another?

    Read the article

  • Why is casting and comparing in PHP faster than is_*?

    - by tstenner
    While optimizing a function in PHP, I changed if(is_array($obj)) foreach($obj as $key=$value { [snip] } else if(is_object($obj)) foreach($obj as $key=$value { [snip] } to if($obj == (array) $obj) foreach($obj as $key=$value { [snip] } else if($obj == (obj) $obj) foreach($obj as $key=$value { [snip] } After learning about ===, I changed that to if($obj === (array) $obj) foreach($obj as $key=$value { [snip] } else if($obj === (obj) $obj) foreach($obj as $key=$value { [snip] } Changing each test from is_* to casting resulted in a major speedup (30%). I understand that === is faster than == as no coercion has to be done, but why is casting the variable so much faster than calling any of the is_*-functions?

    Read the article

  • Why is i-- faster than i++ in loops? [closed]

    - by Afshin Mehrabani
    Possible Duplicate: JavaScript - Are loops really faster in reverse…? I don't know if this question is valid in other languages or not, but I'm asking this specifically for JavaScript. I see in some articles and questions that the fastest loop in JavaScript is something like: for(var i = array.length; i--; ) Also in Sublime Text 2, when you try to write a loop, it suggests: for (var i = Things.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { Things[i] }; I want to know, why is i-- faster than i++ in loops?

    Read the article

  • Which is faster? 4x10k SAS Drives in RAID 10 or 3x15k SAS Drives in RAID 5?

    - by Jenkz
    I am reviewing quote for a server upgrade. (RHEL). The server will have both Apache and MySQL on it, but the reason for upgrade is to increase DB performance. CPU has been upgraded massively, but I know that disk speed is also a factor. So RAID 10 is faster performance than RAID 5, but how much difference does the drive speed make? (The 15k discs in the RAID 5 config is at the top of my budget btw, hence not considdering 4x15k discs in RAID 10, which I assume would be the optimum.)

    Read the article

  • Which is faster for read access on EC2; local drive or EBS?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    Which is faster for read access on an EC2 instance; the "local" drive or an attached EBS volume? I have some data that needs to be persisted so have placed this on an EBS volume. I'm using OpenSolaris, so this volume has been attached as a ZFS pool. However, I have a large chunk of EC2 disk space that's going to go unused, so I'm considering re-purposing this as a ZFS cache volume but I don't want to do this if the disk access is going to be slower than that of the EBS volume as it would potentially have a detrimental effect.

    Read the article

  • Which is faster for read access on EC2; local drive or EBS?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    Which is faster for read access on an EC2 instance; the "local" drive or an attached EBS volume? I have some data that needs to be persisted so have placed this on an EBS volume. I'm using OpenSolaris, so this volume has been attached as a ZFS pool. However, I have a large chunk of EC2 disk space that's going to go unused, so I'm considering re-purposing this as a ZFS cache volume but I don't want to do this if the disk access is going to be slower than that of the EBS volume as it would potentially have a detrimental effect.

    Read the article

  • Is a larger hard drive with the same cache, rpm, and bus type faster?

    - by Joel Coehoorn
    I recently heard that, all else being equal, larger hard are faster than smaller. It has to do with more bits passing under the read head as the drive spins - since a large drive packs the bits more tightly, the same amount of spin/time presents more data to the read head. I had not heard this before, and was inclined to believe the the read heads expected bits at a specific rate and would instead stagger data, so that the two drives would be the same speed. I now find myself looking at purchasing one of two computer models for the school where I work. One model has an 80GB drive, the other a 400GB (for ~$13 more). The size of the drive is immaterial, since users will keep their files on a file server where they can be backed up. But if the 400GB drive will really deliver a performance boost to the hard drive, the extra money is probably worth it. Thoughts?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >