Search Results

Search found 7551 results on 303 pages for 'pre optimization'.

Page 59/303 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

  • Optimizing near-duplicate value search

    - by GApple
    I'm trying to find near duplicate values in a set of fields in order to allow an administrator to clean them up. There are two criteria that I am matching on One string is wholly contained within the other, and is at least 1/4 of its length The strings have an edit distance less than 5% of the total length of the two strings The Pseudo-PHP code: foreach($values as $value){ foreach($values as $match){ if( ( $value['length'] < $match['length'] && $value['length'] * 4 > $match['length'] && stripos($match['value'], $value['value']) !== false ) || ( $match['length'] < $value['length'] && $match['length'] * 4 > $value['length'] && stripos($value['value'], $match['value']) !== false ) || ( abs($value['length'] - $match['length']) * 20 < ($value['length'] + $match['length']) && 0 < ($match['changes'] = levenshtein($value['value'], $match['value'])) && $match['changes'] * 20 <= ($value['length'] + $match['length']) ) ){ $matches[] = &$match; } } } I've tried to reduce calls to the comparatively expensive stripos and levenshtein functions where possible, which has reduced the execution time quite a bit. However, as an O(n^2) operation this just doesn't scale to the larger sets of values and it seems that a significant amount of the processing time is spent simply iterating through the arrays. Some properties of a few sets of values being operated on Total | Strings | # of matches per string | | Strings | With Matches | Average | Median | Max | Time (s) | --------+--------------+---------+--------+------+----------+ 844 | 413 | 1.8 | 1 | 58 | 140 | 593 | 156 | 1.2 | 1 | 5 | 62 | 272 | 168 | 3.2 | 2 | 26 | 10 | 157 | 47 | 1.5 | 1 | 4 | 3.2 | 106 | 48 | 1.8 | 1 | 8 | 1.3 | 62 | 47 | 2.9 | 2 | 16 | 0.4 | Are there any other things I can do to reduce the time to check criteria, and more importantly are there any ways for me to reduce the number of criteria checks required (for example, by pre-processing the input values), since there is such low selectivity?

    Read the article

  • JS best practice for member functions

    - by MickMalone1983
    I'm writing a little mobile games library, and I'm not sure the best practice for declaring member functions of instantiated function objects. For instance, I might create a simple object with one property, and a method to print it: function Foo(id){ this.id = id; this.print = function(){ console.log(this.id); }; }; However, a function which does not need access to 'private' members of the function does not need to be declared in the function at all. I could equally have written: function print(){ console.log(this.id); }; function Foo(id){ this.id = id; this.print = print; }; When the function is invoked through an instance of Foo, the instance becomes the context for this, so the output is the same in either case. I'm not entirely sure how memory is allocated with JS, and I can't find anything that I can understand about something this specific, but it seems to me that with the first example all members of Foo, including the print function, are duplicated each time it is instantiated - but with the second, it just gets a pointer to one, pre-declared function, which would save any more memory having to be allocated as more instances of Foo are created. Am I correct, and if I am, is there any memory/performance benefit to doing this?

    Read the article

  • Upgrade Ubuntu 12.04 to 12.10 failed

    - by pre-commit-hook
    I've a problem. Upgrade failed after "Setting new software channels", when Calculating changes. I tried error: Not all updates can be installed An unresolvable problem occurred while calculating the upgrade: E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. This can be caused by: * Upgrading to a pre-release version of Ubuntu * Running the current pre-release version of Ubuntu * Unofficial software packages not provided by Ubuntu If none of this applies, then please report this bug using the command 'ubuntu-bug ubuntu-release-upgrader-core' in a terminal. Now i have 1580 packages to update and do not update. Partial system upgrade also fails in the first step. What next? Alternatively, to undo the changes? Thank's to help.

    Read the article

  • Most efficient algorithm for merging sorted IEnumerable<T>

    - by franck
    Hello, I have several huge sorted enumerable sequences that I want to merge. Theses lists are manipulated as IEnumerable but are already sorted. Since input lists are sorted, it should be possible to merge them in one trip, without re-sorting anything. I would like to keep the defered execution behavior. I tried to write a naive algorithm which do that (see below). However, it looks pretty ugly and I'm sure it can be optimized. It may exist a more academical algorithm... IEnumerable<T> MergeOrderedLists<T, TOrder>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> orderedlists, Func<T, TOrder> orderBy) { var enumerators = orderedlists.ToDictionary(l => l.GetEnumerator(), l => default(T)); IEnumerator<T> tag = null; var firstRun = true; while (true) { var toRemove = new List<IEnumerator<T>>(); var toAdd = new List<KeyValuePair<IEnumerator<T>, T>>(); foreach (var pair in enumerators.Where(pair => firstRun || tag == pair.Key)) { if (pair.Key.MoveNext()) toAdd.Add(pair); else toRemove.Add(pair.Key); } foreach (var enumerator in toRemove) enumerators.Remove(enumerator); foreach (var pair in toAdd) enumerators[pair.Key] = pair.Key.Current; if (enumerators.Count == 0) yield break; var min = enumerators.OrderBy(t => orderBy(t.Value)).FirstOrDefault(); tag = min.Key; yield return min.Value; firstRun = false; } } The method can be used like that: // Person lists are already sorted by age MergeOrderedLists(orderedList, p => p.Age); assuming the following Person class exists somewhere: public class Person { public int Age { get; set; } } Duplicates should be conserved, we don't care about their order in the new sequence. Do you see any obvious optimization I could use?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything else I can do to optimize this MySQL query?

    - by Legend
    I have two tables, Table A with 700,000 entries and Table B with 600,000 entries. The structure is as follows: Table A: +-----------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-----------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | number | bigint(20) unsigned | YES | | NULL | | +-----------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ Table B: +-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | number_s | bigint(20) unsigned | YES | MUL | NULL | | | number_e | bigint(20) unsigned | YES | MUL | NULL | | | source | varchar(50) | YES | | NULL | | +-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ I am trying to find if any of the values in Table A are present in Table B using the following code: $sql = "SELECT number from TableA"; $result = mysql_query($sql) or die(mysql_error()); while($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($result)) { $number = $row['number']; $sql = "SELECT source, count(source) FROM TableB WHERE number_s < $number AND number_e > $number GROUP BY source"; $re = mysql_query($sql) or die(mysql_error); while($ro = mysql_fetch_array($re)) { echo $number."\t".$ro[0]."\t".$ro[1]."\n"; } } I was hoping that the query would go fast but then for some reason, it isn't terrible fast. My explain on the select (with a particular value of "number") gives me the following: mysql> explain SELECT source, count(source) FROM TableB WHERE number_s < 1812194440 AND number_e > 1812194440 GROUP BY source; +----+-------------+------------+------+-------------------------+------+---------+------+--------+----------------------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+------------+------+-------------------------+------+---------+------+--------+----------------------------------------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | TableB | ALL | number_s,number_e | NULL | NULL | NULL | 696325 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort | +----+-------------+------------+------+-------------------------+------+---------+------+--------+----------------------------------------------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) Is there any optimization that I can squeeze out of this? I tried writing a stored procedure for the same task but it doesn't even seem to work in the first place... It doesn't give any syntax errors... I tried running it for a day and it was still running which felt odd. CREATE PROCEDURE Filter() Begin DECLARE number BIGINT UNSIGNED; DECLARE x INT; DECLARE done INT DEFAULT 0; DECLARE cur1 CURSOR FOR SELECT number FROM TableA; DECLARE CONTINUE HANDLER FOR NOT FOUND SET done = 1; CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE IF NOT EXISTS Flags(number bigint unsigned, count int(11)); OPEN cur1; hist_loop: LOOP FETCH cur1 INTO number; SELECT count(*) from TableB WHERE number_s < number AND number_e > number INTO x; IF done = 1 THEN LEAVE hist_loop; END IF; IF x IS NOT NULL AND x>0 THEN INSERT INTO Flags(number, count) VALUES(number, x); END IF; END LOOP hist_loop; CLOSE cur1; END

    Read the article

  • Local Variables take 7x longer to access than global variables?

    - by ItzWarty
    I was trying to benchmark the gain/loss of "caching" math.floor, in hopes that I could make calls faster. Here was the test: <html> <head> <script> window.onload = function() { var startTime = new Date().getTime(); var k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += Math.floor(9.99); var mathFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; startTime = new Date().getTime(); window.mfloor = Math.floor; k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += window.mfloor(9.99); var globalFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; startTime = new Date().getTime(); var mfloor = Math.floor; k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += mfloor(9.99); var localFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; document.getElementById("MathResult").innerHTML = mathFloorTime; document.getElementById("globalResult").innerHTML = globalFloorTime; document.getElementById("localResult").innerHTML = localFloorTime; }; </script> </head> <body> Math.floor: <span id="MathResult"></span>ms <br /> var mathfloor: <span id="globalResult"></span>ms <br /> window.mathfloor: <span id="localResult"></span>ms <br /> </body> </html> My results from the test: [Chromium 5.0.308.0]: Math.floor: 49ms var mathfloor: 271ms window.mathfloor: 40ms [IE 8.0.6001.18702] Math.floor: 703ms var mathfloor: 9890ms [LOL!] window.mathfloor: 375ms [Firefox [Minefield] 3.7a4pre] Math.floor: 42ms var mathfloor: 2257ms window.mathfloor: 60ms [Safari 4.0.4[531.21.10] ] Math.floor: 92ms var mathfloor: 289ms window.mathfloor: 90ms [Opera 10.10 build 1893] Math.floor: 500ms var mathfloor: 843ms window.mathfloor: 360ms [Konqueror 4.3.90 [KDE 4.3.90 [KDE 4.4 RC1]]] Math.floor: 453ms var mathfloor: 563ms window.mathfloor: 312ms The variance is random, of course, but for the most part In all cases [this shows time taken]: [takes longer] mathfloor Math.floor window.mathfloor [is faster] Why is this? In my projects i've been using var mfloor = Math.floor, and according to my not-so-amazing benchmarks, my efforts to "optimize" actually slowed down the script by ALOT... Is there any other way to make my code more "efficient"...? I'm at the stage where i basically need to optimize, so no, this isn't "premature optimization"...

    Read the article

  • How can I instruct nautilus to pre-generate PDF thumbnails?

    - by Glutanimate
    I have a large library of PDF documents (papers, lectures, handouts) that I want to be able to quickly navigate through. For that I need thumbnails. At the same time however, I see that the ~/.thumbnails folder is piling up with thumbs I don't really need. Deleting thumbnail junk without removing the important thumbs is impossible. If I were to delete them, I'd have to go to each and every folder with important PDF documents and let the thumbnail cache regenerate. I would love to able to automate this process. Is there any way I can tell nautilus to pre-cache the thumbs for a set of given directories? Note: I did find a set of bash scripts that appear to do this for pictures and videos, but not for any other documents. Maybe someone more experienced with scripting might be able to adjust these for PDF documents or at least point me in the right direction on what I'd have to modify for this to work with PDF documents as well. Edit: Unfortunately neither of the answers provided below work. See my comments below for more information. Is there anyone who can solve this?

    Read the article

  • Free Xsigo Technical Pre-sales workshop for Selected Partners !

    - by mseika
    In 2012 Oracle acquired Xsigo, a developer of network I/O virtualisation solutions. This acquisition compliments Oracle’s extensive virtualisation portfolio. With Oracle Virtual Networking products (Xsigo) you can: Virtualise connectivity from any server to any storage and any network. Reduce datacentre complexity by 70% Cut infrastructure expenses by up to 50% Benefits to Channel Partners: Offer a unique proposition that your competitors can’t match. Provide an innovative solution that delivers more performance at less cost. High margins that help sell more products and services. This course is aimed at Technical Pre-Sales Consultants equipping them to provide detailed demos, and architect RFP feedback and customer solutions. The language of this event is French. WHEN24th September 2013 WHEREOracle France 15, boulevard Charles De Gaulle92715 COLOMBES FEESFree of charge 09.00: Welcome, Coffee & Introduction 09.30: Value Propositions, Architecture & Use Cases 11.30: Build a OVN Web Quote & TCO 12.30: Lunch 13.30: Competitive Summary 14.00: Design Scenario Workshop 15.45: Questions/Opportunities  REGISTRATION: Register via this link as soon as possible, 14th june, latest. Note that we have only 20 seats in total for this event. Note that after 14th june we will release free seats for other organizations to register. We look forward to your participation! What we expect from you: You will bring your own laptop. Recommended browser is Firefox 10 ESR. You have checked the material and conducted the assessments. You will be flexible in terms of Agenda and Progress as we intend this to be more of a Workshop having Dialogue rather than sticking tightly into the tentative timeline. What this is not: This PartnerLab does not replace Oracle University Trainings. This PartnerLab does not lead to a Certification as such. This PartnerLab does not enable Partners to full and complete implementation skills.

    Read the article

  • Trying to implement pre/post method code: better to use methods or a parent class?

    - by Will
    I'm finding it difficult to frame this question so ... I want to execute code both before and after a method runs in PHP. There are, as far as I know, two ways to implement this: Method One: pre and post methods class Model { function find($id) { $this->_precode(); // ... do stuff $this->post_code(); } } Add the calls to _precode() and _postcode() to each method where I need this functionality. Method Two: __call and method naming class Model extends PrePost { function prepost_find($id) { // ... do stuff ... } } class PrePost { function __call($method,$param) { $method = "prepost_$method"; // .. precode here .. $result = $this->$method($param); // .. postcode here .. } } This relies on naming a method in a specific way in the inheriting class. Is there a preferred way of doing this? The call method can be made to only handle its specific cases and even defer to a child class's call if there is one. I'm not looking for opinions; I'm looking to find out if there are valid reasons to choose one way over another.

    Read the article

  • Optimizing Jaro-Winkler algorithm

    - by Pentium10
    I have this code for Jaro-Winkler algorithm taken from this website. I need to run 150,000 times to get distance between differences. It takes a long time, as I run on an Android mobile device. Can it be optimized more? public class Jaro { /** * gets the similarity of the two strings using Jaro distance. * * @param string1 the first input string * @param string2 the second input string * @return a value between 0-1 of the similarity */ public float getSimilarity(final String string1, final String string2) { //get half the length of the string rounded up - (this is the distance used for acceptable transpositions) final int halflen = ((Math.min(string1.length(), string2.length())) / 2) + ((Math.min(string1.length(), string2.length())) % 2); //get common characters final StringBuffer common1 = getCommonCharacters(string1, string2, halflen); final StringBuffer common2 = getCommonCharacters(string2, string1, halflen); //check for zero in common if (common1.length() == 0 || common2.length() == 0) { return 0.0f; } //check for same length common strings returning 0.0f is not the same if (common1.length() != common2.length()) { return 0.0f; } //get the number of transpositions int transpositions = 0; int n=common1.length(); for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { if (common1.charAt(i) != common2.charAt(i)) transpositions++; } transpositions /= 2.0f; //calculate jaro metric return (common1.length() / ((float) string1.length()) + common2.length() / ((float) string2.length()) + (common1.length() - transpositions) / ((float) common1.length())) / 3.0f; } /** * returns a string buffer of characters from string1 within string2 if they are of a given * distance seperation from the position in string1. * * @param string1 * @param string2 * @param distanceSep * @return a string buffer of characters from string1 within string2 if they are of a given * distance seperation from the position in string1 */ private static StringBuffer getCommonCharacters(final String string1, final String string2, final int distanceSep) { //create a return buffer of characters final StringBuffer returnCommons = new StringBuffer(); //create a copy of string2 for processing final StringBuffer copy = new StringBuffer(string2); //iterate over string1 int n=string1.length(); int m=string2.length(); for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { final char ch = string1.charAt(i); //set boolean for quick loop exit if found boolean foundIt = false; //compare char with range of characters to either side for (int j = Math.max(0, i - distanceSep); !foundIt && j < Math.min(i + distanceSep, m - 1); j++) { //check if found if (copy.charAt(j) == ch) { foundIt = true; //append character found returnCommons.append(ch); //alter copied string2 for processing copy.setCharAt(j, (char)0); } } } return returnCommons; } } I mention that in the whole process I make just instance of the script, so only once jaro= new Jaro(); If you are going to test and need examples so not break the script, you will find it here, in another thread for python optimization.

    Read the article

  • sql: Group by x,y,z; return grouped by x,y with lowest f(z)

    - by Sai Emrys
    This is for http://cssfingerprint.com I collect timing stats about how fast the different methods I use perform on different browsers, etc., so that I can optimize the scraping speed. Separately, I have a report about what each method returns for a handful of URLs with known-correct values, so that I can tell which methods are bogus on which browsers. (Each is different, alas.) The related tables look like this: CREATE TABLE `browser_tests` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `bogus` tinyint(1) DEFAULT NULL, `result` tinyint(1) DEFAULT NULL, `method` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `url` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `os` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `browser` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `version` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `created_at` datetime DEFAULT NULL, `updated_at` datetime DEFAULT NULL, `user_agent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=33784 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 CREATE TABLE `method_timings` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `method` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `batch_size` int(11) DEFAULT NULL, `timing` int(11) DEFAULT NULL, `os` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `browser` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `version` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `user_agent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `created_at` datetime DEFAULT NULL, `updated_at` datetime DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=28849 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 (user_agent is broken down pre-insert into browser, version, and os from a small list of recognized values using regex; I keep the original user-agent string just in case.) I have a query like this that tells me the average timing for every non-bogus browser / version / method tuple: select c, avg(bogus) as bog, timing, method, browser, version from browser_tests as b inner join ( select count(*) as c, round(avg(timing)) as timing, method, browser, version from method_timings group by browser, version, method having c > 10 order by browser, version, timing ) as t using (browser, version, method) group by browser, version, method having bog < 1 order by browser, version, timing; Which returns something like: c bog tim method browser version 88 0.8333 184 reuse_insert Chrome 4.0.249.89 18 0.0000 238 mass_insert_width Chrome 4.0.249.89 70 0.0400 246 mass_insert Chrome 4.0.249.89 70 0.0400 327 mass_noinsert Chrome 4.0.249.89 88 0.0556 367 reuse_reinsert Chrome 4.0.249.89 88 0.0556 383 jquery Chrome 4.0.249.89 88 0.0556 863 full_reinsert Chrome 4.0.249.89 187 0.0000 105 jquery Chrome 5.0.307.11 187 0.8806 109 reuse_insert Chrome 5.0.307.11 123 0.0000 110 mass_insert_width Chrome 5.0.307.11 176 0.0000 231 mass_noinsert Chrome 5.0.307.11 176 0.0000 237 mass_insert Chrome 5.0.307.11 187 0.0000 314 reuse_reinsert Chrome 5.0.307.11 187 0.0000 372 full_reinsert Chrome 5.0.307.11 12 0.7500 82 reuse_insert Chrome 5.0.335.0 12 0.2500 102 jquery Chrome 5.0.335.0 [...] I want to modify this query to return only the browser/version/method with the lowest timing - i.e. something like: 88 0.8333 184 reuse_insert Chrome 4.0.249.89 187 0.0000 105 jquery Chrome 5.0.307.11 12 0.7500 82 reuse_insert Chrome 5.0.335.0 [...] How can I do this, while still returning the method that goes with that lowest timing? I could filter it app-side, but I'd rather do this in mysql since it'd work better with my caching.

    Read the article

  • Changing html <-> ajax <-> php/mysql to threaded approach

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have an application that needs to be updated real-time. There are various counters and other information that have to come from the database and the system needs to be up to date for the user. My approach now is just a normal ajax request every second to get the new values from the database. There is a JavaScript which loops every second getting the values trough ajax. This works fine but I think its very inefficient. The problem There is an ajax script that loops every second requesting data from php # On the server it has to load the PHP interpeter The PHP file has to get the data and format it correctly # PHP has to make a connection with the mysql database Work with the database(reads,never writes) Format the data so it can be send Send the data back to the browser # Close the database connection, and close the php interpeter Last the browser has to read these values and update the various html parts Now with this approach it has to load the interpreter and make a db connection every second. I was thinking of a way to make this more efficient, and maybe use a threaded approach to this. Threaded aprouch Do a post to the PHP when you enter the page and keep the connection alive In PHP only load the interpreter once, and make a connection to the DB ones Every second send an ajax response to the javascript listener The javascript listener than just changes values as the response from php arrives. I think this approach will be a great optimization to the server load and overall performance. But I can spot some weak point in the system and i need some help with these. Problems with the approach PHP execution time limit I don't think PHP is designed for such a setup. I know there is a time limit on php script execution. I don't know if an everlasting loop in PHP will cause any serious cpu/memory problems. Sending ajax request without breaking I don't know if it is possible to have just one ajax post action and have open and accepting data. user exists the page What will happen when the user exists the page and the PHP script is still going. Will it go on forever. security issues so far i can't think of any security issues. Almost every setup you use have some security issues. Maybe there are some with this solution I do not know of. Open to other solution I really want to change the setup as it is now and move to a threaded approach or better. If someone has a better approach to tackle this I definitely want to hear that. Maybe the usage of some other scripts is better suited for having an ongoing runtime. I only know php and java so any suggestions are welcome and I am willing to dig trough. I know there are things like perl, python etcetera that are used for this type of threaded but i don't know which one is best suited. When using other script If the best way is to go with other type of script like perl,python etcetera I do have some critera. The script has to be accessible via ajax post If it accepts some kind of json encode/decode it would be nice The script has to be able to access the session file This is essential because I need to know if the user is logged in The script has to be able to easily talk to MySQL All comments are welcome, and I hope this question is helpful to other also. Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Accessing local variable doesn't improve performance

    - by NicMagnier
    The short version Why is this code: var index = (Math.floor(y / scale) * img.width + Math.floor(x / scale)) * 4; More performant than this one? var index = Math.floor(ref_index) * 4; The long version This week, the author of Impact js published an article about some rendering issue: http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2012/09/drawing-pixels-is-hard In the article there was the source of a function to scale an image by accessing pixels in the canvas. I wanted to suggest some traditional ways to optimize this kind of code so that the scaling would be shorter at loading time. But after testing it my result was most of the time worst that the original function. Guessing this was the JavaScript engine that was doing some smart optimization I tried to understand a bit more what was going on so I did a bunch of test. But my results are quite confusing and I would need some help to understand what's going on. I have a test page here: http://www.mx981.com/stuff/resize_bench/test.html jsPerf: http://jsperf.com/local-variable-due-to-the-scope-lookup To start the test, click the picture and the results will appear in the console. There are three different versions: The original code: for( var y = 0; y < heightScaled; y++ ) { for( var x = 0; x < widthScaled; x++ ) { var index = (Math.floor(y / scale) * img.width + Math.floor(x / scale)) * 4; var indexScaled = (y * widthScaled + x) * 4; scaledPixels.data[ indexScaled ] = origPixels.data[ index ]; scaledPixels.data[ indexScaled+1 ] = origPixels.data[ index+1 ]; scaledPixels.data[ indexScaled+2 ] = origPixels.data[ index+2 ]; scaledPixels.data[ indexScaled+3 ] = origPixels.data[ index+3 ]; } } jsPerf: http://jsperf.com/so-accessing-local-variable-doesn-t-improve-performance One of my attempt to optimize it: var ref_index = 0; var ref_indexScaled = 0 var ref_step = 1 / scale; for( var y = 0; y < heightScaled; y++ ) { for( var x = 0; x < widthScaled; x++ ) { var index = Math.floor(ref_index) * 4; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index ]; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index+1 ]; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index+2 ]; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index+3 ]; ref_index+= ref_step; } } jsPerf: http://jsperf.com/so-accessing-local-variable-doesn-t-improve-performance The same optimized code but with recalculating the index variable each time (Hybrid) var ref_index = 0; var ref_indexScaled = 0 var ref_step = 1 / scale; for( var y = 0; y < heightScaled; y++ ) { for( var x = 0; x < widthScaled; x++ ) { var index = (Math.floor(y / scale) * img.width + Math.floor(x / scale)) * 4; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index ]; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index+1 ]; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index+2 ]; scaledPixels.data[ ref_indexScaled++ ] = origPixels.data[ index+3 ]; ref_index+= ref_step; } } jsPerf: http://jsperf.com/so-accessing-local-variable-doesn-t-improve-performance The only difference in the two last one is the calculation of the 'index' variable. And to my surprise the optimized version is slower in most browsers (except opera). Results of personal testing (not the jsPerf tests): Opera Original: 8668ms Optimized: 932ms Hybrid: 8696ms Chrome Original: 139ms Optimized: 145ms Hybrid: 136ms Safari Original: 433ms Optimized: 853ms Hybrid: 451ms Firefox Original: 343ms Optimized: 422ms Hybrid: 350ms After digging around, it seems an usual good practice is to access mainly local variable due to the scope lookup. Because The optimized version only call one local variable it should be faster that the Hybrid code which call multiple variable and object in addition to the various operation involved. So why the "optimized" version is slower? I thought that it might be because some JavaScript engine don't optimize the Optimized version because it is not hot enough but after using --trace-opt in chrome, it seems all version are properly compiled by V8. At this point I am a bit clueless and wonder if somebody would know what is going on? I did also some more test cases in this page: http://www.mx981.com/stuff/resize_bench/index.html

    Read the article

  • Optimizing a lot of Scanner.findWithinHorizon(pattern, 0) calls

    - by darvids0n
    I'm building a process which extracts data from 6 csv-style files and two poorly laid out .txt reports and builds output CSVs, and I'm fully aware that there's going to be some overhead searching through all that whitespace thousands of times, but I never anticipated converting about about 50,000 records would take 12 hours. Excerpt of my manual matching code (I know it's horrible that I use lists of tokens like that, but it was the best thing I could think of): public static String lookup(List<String> tokensBefore, List<String> tokensAfter) { String result = null; while(_match(tokensBefore)) { // block until all input is read if(id.hasNext()) { result = id.next(); // capture the next token that matches if(_matchImmediate(tokensAfter)) // try to match tokensAfter to this result return result; } else return null; // end of file; no match } return null; // no matches } private static boolean _match(List<String> tokens) { return _match(tokens, true); } private static boolean _match(List<String> tokens, boolean block) { if(tokens != null && !tokens.isEmpty()) { if(id.findWithinHorizon(tokens.get(0), 0) == null) return false; for(int i = 1; i <= tokens.size(); i++) { if (i == tokens.size()) { // matches all tokens return true; } else if(id.hasNext() && !id.next().matches(tokens.get(i))) { break; // break to blocking behaviour } } } else { return true; // empty list always matches } if(block) return _match(tokens); // loop until we find something or nothing else return false; // return after just one attempted match } private static boolean _matchImmediate(List<String> tokens) { if(tokens != null) { for(int i = 0; i <= tokens.size(); i++) { if (i == tokens.size()) { // matches all tokens return true; } else if(!id.hasNext() || !id.next().matches(tokens.get(i))) { return false; // doesn't match, or end of file } } return false; // we have some serious problems if this ever gets called } else { return true; // empty list always matches } } Basically wondering how I would work in an efficient string search (Boyer-Moore or similar). My Scanner id is scanning a java.util.String, figured buffering it to memory would reduce I/O since the search here is being performed thousands of times on a relatively small file. The performance increase compared to scanning a BufferedReader(FileReader(File)) was probably less than 1%, the process still looks to be taking a LONG time. I've also traced execution and the slowness of my overall conversion process is definitely between the first and last like of the lookup method. In fact, so much so that I ran a shortcut process to count the number of occurrences of various identifiers in the .csv-style files (I use 2 lookup methods, this is just one of them) and the process completed indexing approx 4 different identifiers for 50,000 records in less than a minute. Compared to 12 hours, that's instant. Some notes (updated): I don't necessarily need the pattern-matching behaviour, I only get the first field of a line of text so I need to match line breaks or use Scanner.nextLine(). All ID numbers I need start at position 0 of a line and run through til the first block of whitespace, after which is the name of the corresponding object. I would ideally want to return a String, not an int locating the line number or start position of the result, but if it's faster then it will still work just fine. If an int is being returned, however, then I would now have to seek to that line again just to get the ID; storing the ID of every line that is searched sounds like a way around that. Anything to help me out, even if it saves 1ms per search, will help, so all input is appreciated. Thankyou! Usage scenario 1: I have a list of objects in file A, who in the old-style system have an id number which is not in file A. It is, however, POSSIBLY in another csv-style file (file B) or possibly still in a .txt report (file C) which each also contain a bunch of other information which is not useful here, and so file B needs to be searched through for the object's full name (1 token since it would reside within the second column of any given line), and then the first column should be the ID number. If that doesn't work, we then have to split the search token by whitespace into separate tokens before doing a search of file C for those tokens as well. Generalised code: String field; for (/* each record in file A */) { /* construct the rest of this object from file A info */ // now to find the ID, if we can List<String> objectName = new ArrayList<String>(1); objectName.add(Pattern.quote(thisObject.fullName)); field = lookup(objectSearchToken, objectName); // search file B if(field == null) // not found in file B { lookupReset(false); // initialise scanner to check file C objectName.clear(); // not using the full name String[] tokens = thisObject.fullName.split(id.delimiter().pattern()); for(String s : tokens) objectName.add(Pattern.quote(s)); field = lookup(objectSearchToken, objectName); // search file C lookupReset(true); // back to file B } else { /* found it, file B specific processing here */ } if(field != null) // found it in B or C thisObject.ID = field; } The objectName tokens are all uppercase words with possible hyphens or apostrophes in them, separated by spaces. Much like a person's name. As per a comment, I will pre-compile the regex for my objectSearchToken, which is just [\r\n]+. What's ending up happening in file C is, every single line is being checked, even the 95% of lines which don't contain an ID number and object name at the start. Would it be quicker to use ^[\r\n]+.*(objectname) instead of two separate regexes? It may reduce the number of _match executions. The more general case of that would be, concatenate all tokensBefore with all tokensAfter, and put a .* in the middle. It would need to be matching backwards through the file though, otherwise it would match the correct line but with a huge .* block in the middle with lots of lines. The above situation could be resolved if I could get java.util.Scanner to return the token previous to the current one after a call to findWithinHorizon. I have another usage scenario. Will put it up asap.

    Read the article

  • What is Search Engine Optimization - An Art Or Science?

    As ridiculous and as outrageous as this question might sound, there has been no evident and obvious answer to this. The fact that the process of Search Engine optimization is an art or mere science is something that web scholars have been debating for a long time, and to people's amusement, have still not come to a concrete conclusion. One important step that was taken towards having this question answered or finding an answer to it was asking all the service providers about the way they think of SEO.

    Read the article

  • Search Engine Optimization and SEO Services - What Do They Offer?

    Search engine optimization involves using the Internet as a marketing tool. Companies that are using the Internet to attract customers desire to optimize their exposure to potential to customers. In order to best advantage of SEO, it is recommended that you hire a professional service that can implement programs to evaluate the optimum marketing potential of the Internet. When considering hiring a company to assist you in this process it is important to understand how such services work.

    Read the article

  • Why Does On-Page Search Engine Optimization Work So Well?

    On-page search engine optimization has been around since an inordinately long time - probably it is the first kind of SEO that marketers began to use - but it is only lately that people have begun to understand its great efficacy in bolstering the prospects of any website. The term is used to describe all methods you use on the page of the website in order to enhance its prospects with the search engines.

    Read the article

  • What Are the Top 4 Search Engine Optimization Techniques of Today?

    Today, with the over-whelming competitions among the web masters in competing for customers to increase their sales and profit, finding ways to increase to optimize their websites is not really very difficult. There are whole lots of SEO (Search engine optimization) techniques which can be found over the internet today, which majority of them are really very user friendly which even a novice web-master with limited HTML knowledge find it not that difficult to get the most out of it as long as they have the will to learn and improve in their search ranking.

    Read the article

  • How to Cut Search Engine Optimization Cost Down For Backlink Building?

    How much do you spend to get your high backlinks? I am guessing a good amount if you are paying a service to do it for you, or if you are buying backlink packets made by other people and paying a monthly fee. You can cut your search engine optimization cost greatly with some easy to use software, and even outsource the work for much cheaper than other SEO services.

    Read the article

  • Natural Search Engine Optimization - Don't "Game the System" Or You Will Get Banned!

    When focusing on natural search engine optimization, it is important that you keep the process "white hat." You see, when it comes to SEO, there are basically three schools of thought: White hat, Gray hat, and Black hat. As you can probably infer, white hat is following the rules, gray hat is a little in between, and black hat is going against parameters that Google and other major search engines have set for ethical SEO practices.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >