[#6954] Why isn't Perl highly orthogonal? — Terrence Brannon <brannon@...>

27 messages 2000/12/09

[#7022] Re: Ruby in the US — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...>

> Is it possible for the US to develop corporate

36 messages 2000/12/11
[#7633] Re: Ruby in the US — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/19

tonys@myspleenklug.on.ca (tony summerfelt) writes:

[#7636] Re: Ruby in the US — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/19

[#7704] Re: Ruby in the US — Jilani Khaldi <jilanik@...> 2000/12/19

> > first candidates would be mysql and postgressql because source is

[#7705] Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/19

During an idle chat with someone on IRC, they presented some fairly

[#7750] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

Stephen White wrote:

[#7751] Re: Code sample for improvement — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

Hello --

[#7755] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

David Alan Black wrote:

[#7758] Re: Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Guy N. Hurst wrote:

[#7759] Next amusing problem: talking integers (was Re: Code sample for improvement) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7212] New User Survey: we need your opinions — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/12/14

[#7330] A Java Developer's Wish List for Ruby — "Richard A.Schulman" <RichardASchulman@...>

I see Ruby as having a very bright future as a language to

22 messages 2000/12/15

[#7354] Ruby performance question — Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@...>

I'm parsing simple text lines which look like this:

21 messages 2000/12/15
[#7361] Re: Ruby performance question — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/15

Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@worldnet.att.net> writes:

[#7367] Re: Ruby performance question — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/16

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7371] Re: Ruby performance question — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/16

[#7366] GUIs for Rubies — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Thought I'd switch the subject line to the subject at hand.

22 messages 2000/12/16

[#7416] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Kevin Smith <kevins14@...>

>> >> I would contribute to this project, if it

17 messages 2000/12/16
[#7422] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Holden Glova <dsafari@...> 2000/12/16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#7582] New to Ruby — takaoueda@...

I have just started learning Ruby with the book of Thomas and Hunt. The

24 messages 2000/12/18

[#7604] Any corrections for Programming Ruby — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

12 messages 2000/12/18

[#7737] strange border-case Numeric errors — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

I haven't had a good enough chance to familiarize myself with the code in

19 messages 2000/12/20

[#7801] Is Ruby part of any standard GNU Linux distributions? — "Pete McBreen, McBreen.Consulting" <mcbreenp@...>

Anybody know what it would take to get Ruby into the standard GNU Linux

15 messages 2000/12/20

[#7938] Re: defined? problem? — Kevin Smith <sent@...>

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

26 messages 2000/12/22
[#7943] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

Kevin Smith <sent@qualitycode.com> writes:

[#7950] Re: defined? problem? — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7951] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7954] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

[#7975] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

Hello --

[#7971] Hash access method — Ted Meng <ted_meng@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2000/12/22

[#8030] Re: Basic hash question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "B" == Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> writes:

15 messages 2000/12/24
[#8033] Re: Basic hash question — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2000/12/24

On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, ts wrote:

[#8178] Inexplicable core dump — "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@...>

I have some code that looks like this:

12 messages 2000/12/28

[#8196] My first impression of Ruby. Lack of overloading? (long) — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

Hello,

23 messages 2000/12/28

[#8198] Re: Ruby cron scheduler for NT available — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

John Small wrote:

14 messages 2000/12/28

[#8287] Re: speedup of anagram finder — "SHULTZ,BARRY (HP-Israel,ex1)" <barry_shultz@...>

> -----Original Message-----

12 messages 2000/12/29

[ruby-talk:8398] Re: speedup of anagram finder

From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2000-12-31 11:49:15 UTC
List: ruby-talk #8398
Hi --

On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, SHULTZ,BARRY (HP-Israel,ex1) wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 10:40 PM
> > To: ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp
> > Subject: [ruby-talk:8372] Re: speedup of anagram finder
> >
> > 
> > So perhaps we should synchronize our word lists and see what happens.
> 

> I'd appreciate it if you'd send me a zipped version of your word list.

Done (under separate cover).

> Along with word size, I thought maybe the length of the word list
> itself might be a factor, that prime2 has heavy initial overhead
> because of the array and then speeds :0) through the actual
> processing.

But don't all the various methods have to deal with the same array?
Actually, I think word length is the thing.  I've benchmarked the
three methods (yours, your new one, my one) using seven separate word
files; each file contains 10000 words of fixed length.  Here are the
results, edited (using the 'total' columns) for compactness:

word length:  4      5      6      7      8      9     10
            ______________________________________________
primes      1.61   1.81   2.06   2.55   3.15   3.66   4.03
prime2      1.62   1.83   2.09   2.66   3.16   3.71   4.17
unpack      2.55   2.60   2.66   2.71   2.78   2.82   2.90


The thing that leaps out at one is that unpack scales dramatically
better than the others.  On the hunt for why, I tried a hybrid
approach:

   def hybrid(words)
     anagrams, keys, word, key = {}, {}
     for word in words do
       word.chomp!
       key = 1
       word.unpack('c*').each do |c|
	 key *= $asc2prime[c]
       end
       [...]
   end

which behaved a lot like the other primes ones (1.95 up to 3.99).
EXCEPT.... when I commented out the multiplication line, it behaved
more like the original unpack (1.43 to 1.71).  

I wonder whether this has something to do with the conversion from
Fixnum to Bignum as the number gets bigger?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav

In This Thread

Prev Next