|
Hi Patrick, as far as I can see most of the time is spent in the WITHOUT function (A∼B): F5000←⊂[2]'0123456789'[?5000 10⍴10] F1750←⊂[2]'0123456789'[?1750 10⍴10] WITHOUT: T←⎕TS D←F5000∼F1750 (365 12 30 24 60 60 1000⊥⎕TS-T) 'ms' 512 ms Please note that the comm command works on sorted lists, so that comparing them can be done in linear time. I could do the same in GNU APL: T←⎕TS D←⍋F5000 (365 12 30 24 60 60 1000⊥⎕TS-T) 'ms' 20 ms which should reduce the execution time from currently O(m×n) down to O(m log m + n log n). I will look into this. Regarding FastCGI, I am not familiar with its details, but looking at the Wikipedia description of it, calling apl from it should be rather easy (⎕FIO[34] to listen() on TCP ports and (⎕FIO[35] to accept() TCP connections for apl as a server or ⎕FIO[36] for apl as a client). Alternatively, if apl is supposed to do something else in parallel you can connect apl with some other process via ⎕FIO[57] (which is a socket pair and probably the fastest method) and either use raw bytes, or TLVs encoded with 33/34 ⎕CR. See http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/apl/trunk/HOWTOs/APL-Communication-Cookbook.html?revision=1077 for details. Best Refards, /// Jürgen Sauermann On 10/15/2018 04:40 PM, Patrick
Giagnocavo wrote:
First, thanks for GNU APL! I have a simple script that I have written, it compares one list of approximately 5000 10-digit phone numbers with another list of 1700 ten-digit phone numbers and tells me which numbers (items) in the second list, are not in the larger list.So I do the 2 FIO [49] for each file, assigning each to a variable, then result<- large5klist~smallerlist (rho)result 47 1 (rho) result (to print it out) ; I know in this case there are 47 results and I want it printed in just 1 column, i.e. one phone number per line )OFF when I run this under Linux (a recent svn trunk), without the banner etc., it completes in approximately 0.520 seconds; actually the banner doesn't seem to make much difference in output. When I run "comm -23 list1.txt list2.txt" it takes 0.016 seconds on the same hardware. Now, I don't expect such performance, but, is there a way to reduce the time? Is there a way to start APL such that it can "fork" a task to handle this, so that startup time is almost zero? And (I think about doing this via a web interface) is there a way to run APL under FastCGI? My guess is that the interpreter startup time is the issue, rather than the actual execution of the commands. I will try to test just an "empty" APL startup e.g. a script which contains only )OFF , and see what amount of time that takes. Cheers Patrick Giagnocavo patr...@zill.net |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
