Search Results

Search found 25946 results on 1038 pages for 'cost based optimizer'.

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 6/1038 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • I'm a premature optimizer

    - by Matthew Day
    I work in a small sized software/web development company. I have gotten into the habit of optimizing prematurely, I know it is evil and promotes bad code... But I have been working at this firm for a long while and I have deemed this as a necessary evil. It has never caused me an issue so far in the past, but it might if I get partners or a successor. The point of this long-winded speech is that, should I change my evil practices to 'save face' and to help out in the future?

    Read the article

  • How to wire finite state machine into component-based architecture?

    - by Pup
    State machines seem to cause harmful dependencies in component-based architectures. How, specifically, is communication handled between a state machine and the components that carry out state-related behavior? Where I'm at: I'm new to component-based architectures. I'm making a fighting game, although I don't think that should matter. I envision my state machine being used to toggle states like "crouching", "dashing", "blocking", etc. I've found this state-management technique to be the most natural system for a component-based architecture, but it conflicts with techniques I've read about: Dynamic Game Object Component System for Mutable Behavior Characters It suggests that all components activate/deactivate themselves by continually checking a condition for activation. I think that actions like "running" or "walking" make sense as states, which is in disagreement with the accepted response here: finite state machine used in mario like platform game I've found this useful, but ambiguous: How to implement behavior in a component-based game architecture? It suggests having a separate component that contains nothing but a state machine. But, this necessitates some kind of coupling between the state machine component and nearly all the other components. I don't understand how this coupling should be handled. These are some guesses: A. Components depend on state machine: Components receive reference to state machine component's getState(), which returns an enumeration constant. Components update themselves regularly and check this as needed. B. State machine depends on components: The state machine component receives references to all the components it's monitoring. It queries their getState() methods to see where they're at. C. Some abstraction between them Use an event hub? Command pattern? D. Separate state objects that reference components State Pattern is used. Separate state objects are created, which activate/deactivate a set of components. State machine switches between state objects. I'm looking at components as implementations of aspects. They do everything that's needed internally to make that aspect happen. It seems like components should function on their own, without relying on other components. I know some dependencies are necessary, but state machines seem to want to control all of my components.

    Read the article

  • Cardinality Estimation Bug with Lookups in SQL Server 2008 onward

    - by Paul White
    Cost-based optimization stands or falls on the quality of cardinality estimates (expected row counts).  If the optimizer has incorrect information to start with, it is quite unlikely to produce good quality execution plans except by chance.  There are many ways we can provide good starting information to the optimizer, and even more ways for cardinality estimation to go wrong.  Good database people know this, and work hard to write optimizer-friendly queries with a schema and metadata (e.g. statistics) that reduce the chances of poor cardinality estimation producing a sub-optimal plan.  Today, I am going to look at a case where poor cardinality estimation is Microsoft’s fault, and not yours. SQL Server 2005 SELECT th.ProductID, th.TransactionID, th.TransactionDate FROM Production.TransactionHistory AS th WHERE th.ProductID = 1 AND th.TransactionDate BETWEEN '20030901' AND '20031231'; The query plan on SQL Server 2005 is as follows (if you are using a more recent version of AdventureWorks, you will need to change the year on the date range from 2003 to 2007): There is an Index Seek on ProductID = 1, followed by a Key Lookup to find the Transaction Date for each row, and finally a Filter to restrict the results to only those rows where Transaction Date falls in the range specified.  The cardinality estimate of 45 rows at the Index Seek is exactly correct.  The table is not very large, there are up-to-date statistics associated with the index, so this is as expected. The estimate for the Key Lookup is also exactly right.  Each lookup into the Clustered Index to find the Transaction Date is guaranteed to return exactly one row.  The plan shows that the Key Lookup is expected to be executed 45 times.  The estimate for the Inner Join output is also correct – 45 rows from the seek joining to one row each time, gives 45 rows as output. The Filter estimate is also very good: the optimizer estimates 16.9951 rows will match the specified range of transaction dates.  Eleven rows are produced by this query, but that small difference is quite normal and certainly nothing to worry about here.  All good so far. SQL Server 2008 onward The same query executed against an identical copy of AdventureWorks on SQL Server 2008 produces a different execution plan: The optimizer has pushed the Filter conditions seen in the 2005 plan down to the Key Lookup.  This is a good optimization – it makes sense to filter rows out as early as possible.  Unfortunately, it has made a bit of a mess of the cardinality estimates. The post-Filter estimate of 16.9951 rows seen in the 2005 plan has moved with the predicate on Transaction Date.  Instead of estimating one row, the plan now suggests that 16.9951 rows will be produced by each clustered index lookup – clearly not right!  This misinformation also confuses SQL Sentry Plan Explorer: Plan Explorer shows 765 rows expected from the Key Lookup (it multiplies a rounded estimate of 17 rows by 45 expected executions to give 765 rows total). Workarounds One workaround is to provide a covering non-clustered index (avoiding the lookup avoids the problem of course): CREATE INDEX nc1 ON Production.TransactionHistory (ProductID) INCLUDE (TransactionDate); With the Transaction Date filter applied as a residual predicate in the same operator as the seek, the estimate is again as expected: We could also force the use of the ultimate covering index (the clustered one): SELECT th.ProductID, th.TransactionID, th.TransactionDate FROM Production.TransactionHistory AS th WITH (INDEX(1)) WHERE th.ProductID = 1 AND th.TransactionDate BETWEEN '20030901' AND '20031231'; Summary Providing a covering non-clustered index for all possible queries is not always practical, and scanning the clustered index will rarely be optimal.  Nevertheless, these are the best workarounds we have today. In the meantime, watch out for poor cardinality estimates when a predicate is applied as part of a lookup. The worst thing is that the estimate after the lookup join in the 2008+ plans is wrong.  It’s not hopelessly wrong in this particular case (45 versus 16.9951 is not the end of the world) but it easily can be much worse, and there’s not much you can do about it.  Any decisions made by the optimizer after such a lookup could be based on very wrong information – which can only be bad news. If you think this situation should be improved, please vote for this Connect item. © 2012 Paul White – All Rights Reserved twitter: @SQL_Kiwi email: [email protected]

    Read the article

  • online CSS optimizer?

    - by Dand
    Is there an online CSS optimizer equivalent to Googles JavaScript Closure Optimizer. I've found plenty of CSS compressors online, but I'm looking for a CSS optimizer ... where it actually removes redundant/conflicting attributes

    Read the article

  • Should I incorporate exit cost into choosing a solution

    - by Mr Happy
    I'm currently choosing between two viable software designs/solutions. Solution 1 is easy to implement, but will lock some data in a propriaty format, and will be hard to change later. Solution 2 is hard to implement, but will be a lot easier to change later on. Should I go YAGNI on this or should I incorporate the exit cost in the decision making? Or asked differently, is the exit cost part of the TCO? I'm thinking of going back to the customer with this to ask wether or not he thinks the exit costs are relevant, but I'd like to know what the community thinks first. P.S. Is exit cost the correct term?

    Read the article

  • Generating Landed Cost Management Charges using Custom Pricing Attributes

    - by ChristineS-Oracle
    Learn how to incorporate Custom Pricing Attributes into Landed Cost Management through a new whitepaper.  The new application, Landed Cost Management (LCM), enables exact shipment charges to be applied to incoming receipts. These charges are calculated using the Freight and Special Charges functionality from Advanced Pricing within the Pricing Transaction Entity of “Purchasing”.Advanced Pricing is very flexible in that custom attributes can be defined to derive specific charges. The way that Landed Cost Management builds these attributes is different from the processing for Advanced Pricing with Purchasing.The whitepaper can be downloaded from document Oracle Advanced Pricing White Papers, Doc ID 136687.1.

    Read the article

  • AI for a mixed Turn Based + Real Time battle system - Something "Gambit like" the right approach?

    - by Jason L.
    This is maybe a question that's been asked 100 times 1,000 different ways. I apologize for that :) I'm in the process of building the AI for a game I'm working on. The game is a turn based one, in the vein of Final Fantasy but also has a set of things that happen in real time (reactions). I've experimented with FSM, HFSMs, and Behavior Trees. None of them felt "right" to me and all felt either too limiting or too generic / big. The idea I'm toying with now is something like a "Rules engine" that could be likened to the Gambit system from Final Fantasy 12. I would have a set of predefined personalities. Each of these personalities would have a set of conditions it would check on each event (Turn start, time to react, etc). These conditions would be priority ordered, and the first one that returns true would be the action I take. These conditions can also point to a "choice" action, which is just an action that will make a choice based on some Utility function. Sort of a mix of FSM/HFSM and a Utility Function approach. So, a "gambit" with the personality of "Healer" may look something like this: (ON) Ally HP = 0% - Choose "Relife" spell (ON) Ally HP < 50% - Choose Heal spell (ON) Self HP < 65% - Choose Heal spell (ON) Ally Debuff - Choose Debuff Removal spell (ON) Ally Lost Buff - Choose Buff spell Likewise, a "gambit" with the personality of "Agressor" may look like this: (ON) Foe HP < 10% - Choose Attack skill (ON) Foe any - Choose target - Choose Attack skill (ON) Self Lost Buff - Choose Buff spell (ON) Foe HP = 0% - Taunt the player What I like about this approach is it makes sense in my head. It also would be extremely easy to build an "AI Editor" with an approach like this. What I'm worried about is.. would it be too limiting? Would it maybe get too complicated? Does anyone have any experience with AIs in Turn Based games that could maybe provide me some insight into this approach.. or suggest a different approach? Many thanks in advance!!!

    Read the article

  • Role of an entity state in a component based system?

    - by Paul
    Component-based entity systems are all the rage these days; everyone seems to agree they are the way to go, but no one really has a definitive implementation of such a system. I was wondering, what role do entity states (walking-left, standing, jumping, etc) have in a CBS? Do they act like controllers (i.e. they handle events and change the entity's attributes based on those events)? What about cases where a state would, for example, require that the entity enters no-clip mode? Should, that state, when it enters, maybe set the CollisionComponent of the entity to a null pointer or something? (Then, on exit, the state should restore the entity's CollisionComponent to its previous state.) Also, I guess it's the current state's job to change the entity's state to something else, right?

    Read the article

  • How much does it cost to make a phone?

    - by geoffreyf67
    I was curious if there are any websites that detail how much it costs to make a phone. Not a cell phone but a landline phone. It seems that the ones with any decent features have always cost $100+ and I'd have thought that the price would have dropped over the years but that doesn't seem to be happening. So I figured I'd look into the cost of making the phones. G-Man

    Read the article

  • How to implement a genetic algorithm with distance, time, and cost

    - by ari
    I want to make a solution to find the optimum route of school visit. For example, I want to visit 5 schools (A, B, C, D, E) in my city. Then I must find out what school I should visit first, then the second, then the third etc. with distance, time, and cost criteria. The problem is, I am confused about how to use distance with time and cost (fuel usage) estimation in genetic algorithm to find the optimum route?

    Read the article

  • Lowering the Cost of Apps Infrastructure

    Every enterprise application - your Oracle E-Business Suite, Oracle PeopleSoft and Oracle Siebel applications - require a fast, scalable, secure and reliable database that delivers on business users' quality of service expectations. But, the database used and how it is implemented can dramatically impact the cost of that infrastructure. In this podcast, we'll discuss how customers are optimizing Oracle Database 11g and Oracle Exadata to lower the cost of their application's infrastructure.

    Read the article

  • Cloud based backup solutions based on open standards?

    - by Rick
    I am looking for a solution to backup and consolidate important media from a couple Windows laptops and Mac laptop. I would like a solutions that based on open standards, so my data isn't trapped by proprietary formats and proprietary protocols. I would like the ability to switch clients or change providers in the future. For example, something like Jungle Disk plus S3 sounds like a great option. However, I am having trouble confirming how or if this can be setup meeting this criteria. Are there any real or de-facto standards for treating S3 as a filesystem? If so, what Windows and Mac clients support these standards?

    Read the article

  • Cloud based backup solutions based on open standards?

    - by Rick
    I am looking for a solution to backup and consolidate important media from a couple Windows laptops and Mac laptop. I would like a solutions that based on open standards, so my data isn't trapped by proprietary formats and proprietary protocols. I would like the ability to switch clients or change providers in the future. For example, something like Jungle Disk plus S3 sounds like a great option. However, I am having trouble confirming how or if this can be setup meeting this criteria. Are there any real or de-facto standards for treating S3 as a filesystem? If so, what Windows and Mac clients support these standards?

    Read the article

  • Should components have sub-components in a component-based system like Artemis?

    - by Daniel Ingraham
    I am designing a game using Artemis, although this is more of philosophical question about component-based design in general. Let's say I have non-primitive data which applies to a given component (a Component "animal" may have qualities such as "teeth" or "diet"). There are three ways to approach this in data-driven design, as I see it: 1) Generate classes for these qualities using "traditional" OOP. I imagine this has negative implications for performance, as systems then must be made aware of these qualities in order to process them. It also seems counter to the overall philosophy of data-driven design. 2) Include these qualities as sub-components. This seems off, in that we are now confusing the role of components with that of entities. Moreover out of the box Artemis isn't capable of mapping these subcomponents onto their parent components. 3) Add "teeth", "diet", etc. as components to the overall entity alongside "animal". While this feels odd hierarchically, it may simply be a peculiarity of component-based systems. I suspect 3 is the correct way to think about things, but I was curious about other ideas.

    Read the article

  • iphone app with role based login?

    - by chaitanya
    Can iPhone apps have role based login? In my application I have to display the content according to the role of the user (employee, visitor). Till now I havent seen any app with role based login for iphone. Can I develop role based login? is there any restriction from apple side for these kind of logins to approve the app?

    Read the article

  • Upcoming Directory Services Live Webcast - Improve Time-to-Market and Reduce Cost with Oracle Direct

    - by mark.wilcox
    We're doing another live webcast on May 27 - Here's the details: Live Webcast: Improve Time-to-Market and Reduce Cost with Oracle Directory Services Event Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010 Event Time: 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time / 1:00 Eastern Standard Time Organizations can spend up to 60% of their IT budgets on operational activities. • Are you being asked to do more, with less resources? • Have you had to lead a cost cutting exercise in your IT department? • Do you have licenses for software and wonder whether you are getting the most out of those resources? • Do you want to be an Identity Hero inside your organization? Oracle brings leadership in Directory Services to help organization's identify ways to leverage Oracle Virtual Directory to reduce costs in their enterprise. This presentation will explore ways to use Oracle Virtual Directory to federate faster, create architectures to meet aggressive time constraints for identity projects or mergers and acquisitions in a cost conscious environment. -- Posted via email from Virtual Identity Dialogue

    Read the article

  • Should I refer to browser-based games as HTML5 games or Javascript games?

    - by Bane
    First of all, I know that there are alternatives to both HTML5 and Javascript, but I worded the question so generally ("browser-based") because if I had said "HTML5" or "Javascript" games that would already imply an answer to the question. When writing wiki posts or discussing, I usually call these games "HTML5/Javascript" games. They are written in Javascript, using the new HTML5 technology. What is the proper way to call them: HTML5 or Javascript games? I see that most people opt for HTML5, why?

    Read the article

  • Register Game Object Components in Game Subsystems? (Component-based Game Object design)

    - by topright
    I'm creating a component-based game object system. Some tips: GameObject is simply a list of Components. There are GameSubsystems. For example, rendering, physics etc. Each GameSubsystem contains pointers to some of Components. GameSubsystem is a very powerful and flexible abstraction: it represents any slice (or aspect) of the game world. There is a need in a mechanism of registering Components in GameSubsystems (when GameObject is created and composed). There are 4 approaches: 1: Chain of responsibility pattern. Every Component is offered to every GameSubsystem. GameSubsystem makes a decision which Components to register (and how to organize them). For example, GameSubsystemRender can register Renderable Components. pro. Components know nothing about how they are used. Low coupling. A. We can add new GameSubsystem. For example, let's add GameSubsystemTitles that registers all ComponentTitle and guarantees that every title is unique and provides interface to quering objects by title. Of course, ComponentTitle should not be rewrited or inherited in this case. B. We can reorganize existing GameSubsystems. For example, GameSubsystemAudio, GameSubsystemRender, GameSubsystemParticleEmmiter can be merged into GameSubsystemSpatial (to place all audio, emmiter, render Components in the same hierarchy and use parent-relative transforms). con. Every-to-every check. Very innefficient. con. Subsystems know about Components. 2: Each Subsystem searches for Components of specific types. pro. Better performance than in Approach 1. con. Subsystems still know about Components. 3: Component registers itself in GameSubsystem(s). We know at compile-time that there is a GameSubsystemRenderer, so let's ComponentImageRender will call something like GameSubsystemRenderer::register(ComponentRenderBase*). pro. Performance. No unnecessary checks as in Approach 1. con. Components are badly coupled with GameSubsystems. 4: Mediator pattern. GameState (that contains GameSubsystems) can implement registerComponent(Component*). pro. Components and GameSubystems know nothing about each other. con. In C++ it would look like ugly and slow typeid-switch. Questions: Which approach is better and mostly used in component-based design? What Practice says? Any suggestions about implementation of Approach 4? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How should I structure my turn based engine to allow flexibility for players/AI and observation?

    - by Reefpirate
    I've just started making a Turn Based Strategy engine in GameMaker's GML language... And I was cruising along nicely until it came time to handle the turn cycle, and determining who is controlling what player, and also how to handle the camera and what is displayed on screen. Here's an outline of the main switch happening in my main game loop at the moment: switch (GameState) { case BEGIN_TURN: // Start of turn operations/routines break; case MID_TURN: switch (PControlledBy[Turn]) { case HUMAN: switch (MidTurnState) { case MT_SELECT: // No units selected, 'idle' UI state break; case MT_MOVE: // Unit selected and attempting to move break; case MT_ATTACK: break; } break; case COMPUTER: // AI ROUTINES GO HERE break; case OBSERVER: // OBSERVER ROUTINES GO HERE break; } break; case END_TURN: // End of turn routines/operations, and move Turn to next player break; } Now, I can see a couple of problems with this set-up already... But I don't have any idea how to go about making it 'right'. Turn is a global variable that stores which player's turn it is, and the BEGIN_TURN and END_TURN states make perfect sense to me... But the MID_TURN state is baffling me because of the things I want to happen here: If there are players controlled by humans, I want the AI to do it's thing on its turn here, but I want to be able to have the camera follow the AI as it makes moves in the human player's vision. If there are no human controlled player's, I'd like to be able to watch two or more AI's battle it out on the map with god-like 'observer' vision. So basically I'm wondering if there are any resources for how to structure a Turn Based Strategy engine? I've found lots of writing about pathfinding and AI, and those are all great... But when it comes to handling the turn structure and the game states I am having trouble finding any resources at all. How should the states be divided to allow flexibility between the players and the controllers (HUMAN, COMPUTER, OBSERVER)? Also, maybe if I'm on the right track I just need some reassurance before I lay down another few hundred lines of code...

    Read the article

  • Is chess-like AI really inapplicable in turn-based strategy games?

    - by Joh
    Obviously, trying to apply the min-max algorithm on the complete tree of moves works only for small games (I apologize to all chess enthusiasts, by "small" I do not mean "simplistic"). For typical turn-based strategy games where the board is often wider than 100 tiles and all pieces in a side can move simultaneously, the min-max algorithm is inapplicable. I was wondering if a partial min-max algorithm which limits itself to N board configurations at each depth couldn't be good enough? Using a genetic algorithm, it might be possible to find a number of board configurations that are good wrt to the evaluation function. Hopefully, these configurations might also be good wrt to long-term goals. I would be surprised if this hasn't been thought of before and tried. Has it? How does it work?

    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 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >