Search Results

Search found 3481 results on 140 pages for 'convex optimization'.

Page 67/140 | < Previous Page | 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74  | Next Page >

  • Compile Flex application without debug? Optimisation options for flex compiler?

    - by maoanz
    I have created a simple test application with the following code var i : int; for (i=0; i<3000000; i++){ trace(i); } When I run the application, it's very slow to load, which means the "trace" is running. I check the flash player by right-clicking, the debugger option is not enable. So I wonder if there is an option to put in compiler to exclude the trace. Otherwise, I have to remove manually all the trace in the program. Are there any other options of compiler to optimize the flex application in a maximum way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using Custom Generic Collection faster with objects than List

    - by Kaminari
    I'm iterating through a List<> to find a matching element. The problem is that object has only 2 significant values, Name and Link (both strings), but has some other values which I don't want to compare. I'm thinking about using something like HashSet (which is exactly what I'm searching for -- fast) from .NET 3.5 but target framework has to be 2.0. There is something called Power Collections here: http://powercollections.codeplex.com/, should I use that? But maybe there is other way? If not, can you suggest me a suitable custom collection?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing sparse dot-product in C#

    - by Haggai
    Hello. I'm trying to calculate the dot-product of two very sparse associative arrays. The arrays contain an ID and a value, so the calculation should be done only on those IDs that are common to both arrays, e.g. <(1, 0.5), (3, 0.7), (12, 1.3) * <(2, 0.4), (3, 2.3), (12, 4.7) = 0.7*2.3 + 1.3*4.7 . My implementation (call it dict) currently uses Dictionaries, but it is too slow to my taste. double dot_product(IDictionary<int, double> arr1, IDictionary<int, double> arr2) { double res = 0; double val2; foreach (KeyValuePair<int, double> p in arr1) if (arr2.TryGetValue(p.Key, out val2)) res += p.Value * val2; return res; } The full arrays have about 500,000 entries each, while the sparse ones are only tens to hundreds entries each. I did some experiments with toy versions of dot products. First I tried to multiply just two double arrays to see the ultimate speed I can get (let's call this "flat"). Then I tried to change the implementation of the associative array multiplication using an int[] ID array and a double[] values array, walking together on both ID arrays and multiplying when they are equal (let's call this "double"). I then tried to run all three versions with debug or release, with F5 or Ctrl-F5. The results are as follows: debug F5: dict: 5.29s double: 4.18s (79% of dict) flat: 0.99s (19% of dict, 24% of double) debug ^F5: dict: 5.23s double: 4.19s (80% of dict) flat: 0.98s (19% of dict, 23% of double) release F5: dict: 5.29s double: 3.08s (58% of dict) flat: 0.81s (15% of dict, 26% of double) release ^F5: dict: 4.62s double: 1.22s (26% of dict) flat: 0.29s ( 6% of dict, 24% of double) I don't understand these results. Why isn't the dictionary version optimized in release F5 as do the double and flat versions? Why is it only slightly optimized in the release ^F5 version while the other two are heavily optimized? Also, since converting my code into the "double" scheme would mean lots of work - do you have any suggestions how to optimize the dictionary one? Thanks! Haggai

    Read the article

  • Tree iterator, can you optimize this any further?

    - by Ron
    As a follow up to my original question about a small piece of this code I decided to ask a follow up to see if you can do better then what we came up with so far. The code below iterates over a binary tree (left/right = child/next ). I do believe there is room for one less conditional in here (the down boolean). The fastest answer wins! The cnt statement can be multiple statements so lets make sure this appears only once The child() and next() member functions are about 30x as slow as the hasChild() and hasNext() operations. Keep it iterative <-- dropped this requirement as the recursive solution presented was faster. This is C++ code visit order of the nodes must stay as they are in the example below. ( hit parents first then the children then the 'next' nodes). BaseNodePtr is a boost::shared_ptr as thus assignments are slow, avoid any temporary BaseNodePtr variables. Currently this code takes 5897ms to visit 62200000 nodes in a test tree, calling this function 200,000 times. void processTree (BaseNodePtr current, unsigned int & cnt ) { bool down = true; while ( true ) { if ( down ) { while (true) { cnt++; // this can/will be multiple statesments if (!current->hasChild()) break; current = current->child(); } } if ( current->hasNext() ) { down = true; current = current->next(); } else { down = false; current = current->parent(); if (!current) return; // done. } } }

    Read the article

  • How to make if-elif-else statement in python more space-saving?

    - by Neverland
    I have a lot of if-elif-else statements in my code if message == '0' or message == '3' or message == '5' or message == '7': ... elif message == '1' or message == '2' or message == '4' or message == '6' or message == '8': ... else: ... Is it possible to format this in a more space-saving way? I tried it this way: if message == '0' or '3' or '5' or '7': ... elif message == '1' or '2' or '4' or '6' or '8': ... else: ... But without success.

    Read the article

  • Will an optimizing compiler remove calls to a method whose result will be multiplied by zero?

    - by Tim R.
    Suppose you have a computationally expensive method, Compute(p), which returns some float, and another method, Falloff(p), which returns another float from zero to one. If you compute Falloff(p) * Compute(p), will Compute(p) still run when Falloff(p) returns zero? Or would you need to write a special case to prevent Compute(p) from running unnecessarily? Theoretically, an optimizing compiler could determine that omitting Compute when Falloff returns zero would have no effect on the program. However, this is kind of hard to test, since if you have Compute output some debug data to determine whether it is running, the compiler would know not to omit it because of that debug info, resulting in sort of a Schrodinger's cat situation. I know the safe solution to this problem is just to add the special case, but I'm just curious.

    Read the article

  • Why this query is so slow?

    - by Silver Light
    This query appears in mysql slow query log: it takes 11 seconds. INSERT INTO record_visits ( record_id, visit_day ) VALUES ( '567', NOW() ); The table has 501043 records and it's structure looks like this: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `record_visits` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `record_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL, `visit_day` date DEFAULT NULL, `visit_cnt` bigint(20) DEFAULT '1', PRIMARY KEY (`id`), UNIQUE KEY `record_id_visit_day` (`record_id`,`visit_day`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 ; What could be wrong? Why this INSERT takes so long?

    Read the article

  • Most efficient way to LIMIT results in a JOIN?

    - by johnnietheblack
    I have a fairly simple one-to-many type join in a MySQL query. In this case, I'd like to LIMIT my results by the left table. For example, let's say I have an accounts table and a comments table, and I'd like to pull 100 rows from accounts and all the associated comments rows for each. Thy only way I can think to do this is with a sub-select in in the FROM clause instead of simply selecting FROM accounts. Here is my current idea: SELECT a.*, c.* FROM (SELECT * FROM accounts LIMIT 100) a LEFT JOIN `comments` c on c.account_id = a.id ORDER BY a.id However, whenever I need to do a sub-select of some sort, my intermediate level SQL knowledge feels like it's doing something wrong. Is there a more efficient, or faster, way to do this, or is this pretty good? By the way... This might be the absolute simplest way to do this, which I'm okay with as an answer. I'm simply trying to figure out if there IS another way to do this that could potentially compete with the above statement in terms of speed.

    Read the article

  • Optimizing a "set in a string list" to a "set as a matrix" operation

    - by Eric Fournier
    I have a set of strings which contain space-separated elements. I want to build a matrix which will tell me which elements were part of which strings. For example: "" "A B C" "D" "B D" Should give something like: A B C D 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 Now I've got a solution, but it runs slow as molasse, and I've run out of ideas on how to make it faster: reverseIn <- function(vector, value) { return(value %in% vector) } buildCategoryMatrix <- function(valueVector) { allClasses <- c() for(classVec in unique(valueVector)) { allClasses <- unique(c(allClasses, strsplit(classVec, " ", fixed=TRUE)[[1]])) } resMatrix <- matrix(ncol=0, nrow=length(valueVector)) splitValues <- strsplit(valueVector, " ", fixed=TRUE) for(cat in allClasses) { if(cat=="") { catIsPart <- (valueVector == "") } else { catIsPart <- sapply(splitValues, reverseIn, cat) } resMatrix <- cbind(resMatrix, catIsPart) } colnames(resMatrix) <- allClasses return(resMatrix) } Profiling the function gives me this: $by.self self.time self.pct total.time total.pct "match" 31.20 34.74 31.24 34.79 "FUN" 30.26 33.70 74.30 82.74 "lapply" 13.56 15.10 87.86 97.84 "%in%" 12.92 14.39 44.10 49.11 So my actual questions would be: - Where are the 33% spent in "FUN" coming from? - Would there be any way to speed up the %in% call? I tried turning the strings into factors prior to going into the loop so that I'd be matching numbers instead of strings, but that actually makes R crash. I've also tried going for partial matrix assignment (IE, resMatrix[i,x] <- 1) where i is the number of the string and x is the vector of factors. No dice there either, as it seems to keep on running infinitely.

    Read the article

  • Can a conforming C# compiler optimize away a local (but unused) variable if it is the only strong re

    - by stakx
    The title says it all, but let me explain: void Case_1() { var weakRef = new WeakReference(new object()); GC.Collect(); // <-- doesn't have to be an explicit call; just assume that // garbage collection would occur at this point. if (weakRef.IsAlive) ... } In this code example, I obviously have to plan for the possibility that the new'ed object is reclaimed by the garbage collector; therefore the if statement. (Note that I'm using weakRef for the sole purpose of checking if the new'ed object is still around.) void Case_2() { var unusedLocalVar = new object(); var weakRef = new WeakReference(unusedLocalVar); GC.Collect(); // <-- doesn't have to be an explicit call; just assume that // garbage collection would occur at this point. Debug.Assert(weakReferenceToUseless.IsAlive); } The main change in this code example from the previous one is that the new'ed object is strongly referenced by a local variable (unusedLocalVar). However, this variable is never used again after the weak reference (weakRef) has been created. Question: Is a conforming C# compiler allowed to optimize the first two lines of Case_2 into those of Case_1 if it sees that unusedLocalVar is only used in one place, namely as an argument to the WeakReference constructor? i.e. is there any possibility that the assertion in Case_2 could ever fail?

    Read the article

  • How do I select a random record efficiently in MySQL?

    - by user198729
    mysql> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM urls ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+-------+---------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+-------+---------------------------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | urls | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 62228 | Using temporary; Using filesort | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+-------+---------------------------------+ The above doesn't qualify as efficient,how should I do it properly?

    Read the article

  • SimpleDB as Denormalized DB

    - by Max
    In an environment where you have a relational database which handles all business transactions is it a good idea to utilise SimpleDB for all data queries to have faster and more lightweight search? So the master data storage would be a relational DB which is "replicated"/"transformed" into SimpleDB to provide very fast read only queries since no JOINS and complicated subselects are needed.

    Read the article

  • Has anyone ever successfully make index merge work for MySQL?

    - by user198729
    Setup: mysql> create table t(a integer unsigned,b integer unsigned); mysql> insert into t(a,b) values (1,2),(1,3),(2,4); mysql> create index i_t_a on t(a); mysql> create index i_t_b on t(b); mysql> explain select * from t where a=1 or b=4; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | t | ALL | i_t_a,i_t_b | NULL | NULL | NULL | 3 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Is there something I'm missing? Update mysql> explain select * from t where a=1 or b=4; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | t | ALL | i_t_a,i_t_b | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1863 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Version: mysql> select version(); +----------------------+ | version() | +----------------------+ | 5.1.36-community-log | +----------------------+ Has anyone ever successfully make index merge work for MySQL? I'll be glad to see successful stories here:)

    Read the article

  • Thin down jQuery

    - by Taylor Satula
    Hi, I have been optimizing my website but the one problem that stands in my way is all the jQuery functions that I do not use. The only ones that I use are for a smooth page scroller. It just seems like such a waste of download time. My question is: Is there any script or program that will remove the jQuery code that I do not need and leave the 1 or 2 functions that I do need.

    Read the article

  • Defined variables and arrays vs functions in php

    - by Frank Presencia Fandos
    Introduction I have some sort of values that I might want to access several times each page is loaded. I can take two different approaches for accessing them but I'm not sure which one is 'better'. Three already implemented examples are several options for the Language, URI and displaying text that I describe here: Language Right now it is configured in this way: lang() is a function that returns different values depending on the argument. Example: lang("full") returns the current language, "English", while lang() returns the abbreviation of the current language, "en". There are many more options, like lang("select"), lang("selectact"), etc that return different things. The code is too long and irrelevant for the case so if anyone wants it just ask for it. Url The $Url array also returns different values depending on the request. The whole array is fully defined in the beginning of the page and used to get shorter but accurate links of the current page. Example: $Url['full'] would return "http://mypage.org/path/to/file.php?page=1" and $Url['file'] would return "file.php". It's useful for action="" within the forms and many other things. There are more values for $Url['folder'], $Url['file'], etc. Same thing about the code, if wanted, just request it. Text [You can skip this section] There's another array called $Text that is defined in the same way than $Url. The whole array is defined at the beginning, making a mysql call and defining all $Text[$i] for current page with a while loop. I'm not sure if this is more efficient than multiple calls for a single mysql cell. Example: $Text['54'] returns "This is just a test array!" which this could perfectly be implemented with a function like text(54). Question With the 3 examples you can see that I use different methods to do almost the same function (no pun intended), but I'm not sure which one should become the standard one for my code. I could create a function called url() and other called text() to output what I want. I think that working with functions in those cases is better, but I'm not sure why. So I'd really appreciate your opinions and advice. Should I mix arrays and functions in the way I described or should I just use funcions? Please, base your answer in this: The source needs to be readable and reusable by other developers Resource consumption (processing, time and memory). The shorter the code the better. The more you explain the reasons the better. Thank you PS, now I know the differences between $Url and $Uri.

    Read the article

  • How can i optimize this recursive method

    - by Tirdyr
    Hi there. I'm trying to make a word puzzle game, and for that i'm using a recursive method to find all possible words in the given letters. The letters is in a 4x4 board. Like this: ABCD EFGH HIJK LMNO The recursive method is called inside this loop: for (int y = 0; y < width; y++) { for (int x = 0; x < height; x++) { myScabble.Search(letters, y, x, width, height, "", covered, t); } } letters is a 2D array of chars. y & x is ints that shows where in the board width & height is also int, that tells the dimensions of the board "" is the string we are trying to make (the word) covered is an array of bools, to check if we allready used that square. t is a List (wich contains all the words to check against). The recursive method that need optimizing: public void Search(char[,] letters, int y, int x, int width, int height, string build, bool[,] covered, List<aWord> tt) { // Dont get outside the bounds if (y >= width || y < 0 || x >= height || x < 0) { return; } // Dont deal with allrady covered squares if (covered[x, y]) { return; } // Get Letter char letter = letters[x, y]; // Append string pass = build + letter; // check if its a possibel word //List<aWord> t = myWords.aWord.Where(w => w.word.StartsWith(pass)).ToList(); List<aWord> t = tt.Where(w => w.word.StartsWith(pass)).ToList(); // check if the list is emphty if (t.Count < 10 && t.Count != 0) { //stop point } if (t.Count == 0) { return; } // Check if its a complete word. if (t[0].word == pass) { //check if its allrdy present in the _found dictinary if (!_found.ContainsKey(pass)) { //if not add the word to the dictionary _found.Add(pass, true); } } // Check to see if there is more than 1 more that matches string pass // ie. are there more words to find. if (t.Count > 1) { // make a copy of the covered array bool[,] cov = new bool[height, width]; for (int i = 0; i < width; i++) { for (int a = 0; a < height; a++) { cov[a, i] = covered[a, i]; } } // Set the current square as covered. cov[x, y] = true; // Continue in all 8 directions. Search(letters, y + 1, x, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y, x + 1, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y + 1, x + 1, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y - 1, x, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y, x - 1, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y - 1, x - 1, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y - 1, x + 1, width, height, pass, cov, t); Search(letters, y + 1, x - 1, width, height, pass, cov, t); } } The code works as i expected it to do, however it is very slow.. it takes about 2 mins to find the words. EDIT: i clarified that the letters array is 2D

    Read the article

  • How do I know if my PHP application is using too much memory?

    - by John
    I'm working on a PHP web application that let's users network with each other, book events, message etc... I launched it a few months ago and at the moment, there's only about 100 users. I set up the application on a VPS with ubuntu 9.10, apache 2, mysql 5 and php 5. I had 360 Mb of RAM, but upgraded to 720 MB a few minutes ago. Lately, my web application has been experiencing outages due to excessive memory usage. From what I can tell in error logs, it seems the server automatically kills apache processes that consume too much memory. As a result, I upgraded memory from 360 MB to 720 MB as a stop-gap measure. So my question is, how do I go about resolving these outage issues? How do I know if my website's need for more memory is due to poor code or if it's part of the website's natural growth? What's the most efficient way to determine which PHP scripts consume the most memory?

    Read the article

  • iPhone App takes up too much memory

    - by Stephen Furlani
    Ok, so here's my problem. My iPhone app is 1.2MB on disk. Granted I have a bunch of Images for the GUI buttons and backgrounds, etc. In-memory, my app takes up a whopping 15MB! That means if I then take a picture with the camera, 8MB default, it gives a memory warning (several) even before the picker calls its delegate! How can I tell what is grabbing so much memory, and how to remove it? I've removed all of my debugging symbols and added [-Os], but it still takes up a huge amount of memory! Also, (how) can I change the default resolution of the camera?

    Read the article

  • MySQL, delete and index hint

    - by Manuel Darveau
    I have to delete about 10K rows from a table that has more than 100 million rows based on some criteria. When I execute the query, it takes about 5 minutes. I ran an explain plan (the delete query converted to select * since MySQL does not support explain delete) and found that MySQL uses the wrong index. My question is: is there any way to tell MySQL which index to use during delete? If not, what ca I do? Select to temp table then delete from temp table? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • C++ performance, optimizing compiler, empty function in .cpp

    - by Dodo
    I've a very basic class, name it Basic, used in nearly all other files in a bigger project. In some cases, there needs to be debug output, but in release mode, this should not be enabled and be a NOOP. Currently there is a define in the header, which switches a makro on or off, depending on the setting. So this is definetely a NOOP, when switched off. I'm wondering, if I have the following code, if a compiler (MSVS / gcc) is able to optimize out the function call, so that it is again a NOOP. (By doing that, the switch could be in the .cpp and switching will be much faster, compile/link time wise). --Header-- void printDebug(const Basic* p); class Basic { Basic() { simpleSetupCode; // this should be a NOOP in release, // but constructor could be inlined printDebug(this); } }; --Source-- // PRINT_DEBUG defined somewhere else or here #if PRINT_DEBUG void printDebug(const Basic* p) { // Lengthy debug print } #else void printDebug(const Basic* p) {} #endif

    Read the article

  • How to speed-up a simple method (preferably without changing interfaces or data structures)?

    - by baol
    I have some data structures: all_unordered_m is a big vector containing all the strings I need (all different) ordered_m is a small vector containing the indexes of a subset of the strings (all different) in the former vector position_m maps the indexes of objects from the first vector to their position in the second one. The string_after(index, reverse) method returns the string referenced by ordered_m after all_unordered_m[index]. ordered_m is considered circular, and is explored in natural or reverse order depending on the second parameter. The code is something like the following: struct ordered_subset { // [...] std::vector<std::string>& all_unordered_m; // size = n >> 1 std::vector<size_t> ordered_m; // size << n std::tr1::unordered_map<size_t, size_t> position_m; const std::string& string_after(size_t index, bool reverse) const { size_t pos = position_m.find(index)->second; if(reverse) pos = (pos == 0 ? orderd_m.size() - 1 : pos - 1); else pos = (pos == ordered.size() - 1 ? 0 : pos + 1); return all_unordered_m[ordered_m[pos]]; } }; Given that: I do need all of the data-structures for other purposes; I cannot change them because I need to access the strings: by their id in the all_unordered_m; by their index inside the various ordered_m; I need to know the position of a string (identified by it's position in the first vector) inside ordered_m vector; I cannot change the string_after interface without changing most of the program. How can I speed up the string_after method that is called billions of times and is eating up about 10% of the execution time?

    Read the article

  • negative values in integer programming model

    - by Lucia
    I'm new at using the glpk tool, and after writing a model for certain integer problem and running the solver (glpsol) i get negative values in some constraint that shouldn't be negative at all: No.Row name Activity Lower bound Upper bound 8 act[1] 0 -0 9 act[2] -3 -0 10 act[2] -2 -0 That constraint is defined like this: act{j in J}: sum{i in I} d[i,j] <= y[j]*m; where the sets and variables used are like this: param m, integer, 0; param n, integer, 0; set I := 1..m; set J := 1..n; var y{j in J}, binary; As the upper bound is negative, i think the problem may be in the y[j]*m parte, of the right side of the inequality.. perhaps something with the multiplication of binarys? or that the j in that side of the constrait is undefined? i dont know... i would be greatly grateful if someone can help me with this! :) and excuse for my bad english thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Sorting a list of numbers with modified cost

    - by David
    First, this was one of the four problems we had to solve in a project last year and I couldn’t find a suitable algorithm so we handle in a brute force solution. Problem: The numbers are in a list that is not sorted and supports only one type of operation. The operation is defined as follows: Given a position i and a position j the operation moves the number at position i to position j without altering the relative order of the other numbers. If i j, the positions of the numbers between positions j and i - 1 increment by 1, otherwise if i < j the positions of the numbers between positions i+1 and j decreases by 1. This operation requires i steps to find a number to move and j steps to locate the position to which you want to move it. Then the number of steps required to move a number of position i to position j is i+j. We need to design an algorithm that given a list of numbers, determine the optimal (in terms of cost) sequence of moves to rearrange the sequence. Attempts: Part of our investigation was around NP-Completeness, we make it a decision problem and try to find a suitable transformation to any of the problems listed in Garey and Johnson’s book: Computers and Intractability with no results. There is also no direct reference (from our point of view) to this kind of variation in Donald E. Knuth’s book: The art of Computer Programing Vol. 3 Sorting and Searching. We also analyzed algorithms to sort linked lists but none of them gives a good idea to find de optimal sequence of movements. Note that the idea is not to find an algorithm that orders the sequence, but one to tell me the optimal sequence of movements in terms of cost that organizes the sequence, you can make a copy and sort it to analyze the final position of the elements if you want, in fact we may assume that the list contains the numbers from 1 to n, so we know where we want to put each number, we are just concerned with minimizing the total cost of the steps. We tested several greedy approaches but all of them failed, divide and conquer sorting algorithms can’t be used because they swap with no cost portions of the list and our dynamic programing approaches had to consider many cases. The brute force recursive algorithm takes all the possible combinations of movements from i to j and then again all the possible moments of the rest of the element’s, at the end it returns the sequence with less total cost that sorted the list, as you can imagine the cost of this algorithm is brutal and makes it impracticable for more than 8 elements. Our observations: n movements is not necessarily cheaper than n+1 movements (unlike swaps in arrays that are O(1)). There are basically two ways of moving one element from position i to j: one is to move it directly and the other is to move other elements around i in a way that it reaches the position j. At most you make n-1 movements (the untouched element reaches its position alone). If it is the optimal sequence of movements then you didn’t move the same element twice.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74  | Next Page >