I will have a look around. I listed the map I used in my first email, It's on my Dropbox: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10094764/World2.zip
Meanwhile I wrote a function that is already twice as fast as I had, no memory problems, no threads. One tinny problem: it doesn't produce the same result. It's the one at the top: https://gist.github.com/663096 The other day I found out that this kind of logic will actually refer to the same same transient. This eliminates the remainder and associng in the areduce fn second in the list, but I'm not sure this is reliable, and it might be the reason why some results get lost. On Nov 5, 4:24 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:41 AM, pepijn (aka fliebel) <pepijnde...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > I don't know how to check the GC activity on my project, but I did run > > Mian on Jython. It performs much like my initial Clojure version. It > > consumes absurd amounts of memory and never finishes. > > > So I think we can safely say that Java's GC or the way it stores data > > is less efficient on this type of problem than Python. > > It's common that iteration heavy, mutation heavy code which is idiomatic in > Python poses some challenges when translating to Clojure. Making this run > faster than Python should be possible, and I would be surprised if it wasn't > quite a bit faster. You should search the Google Group for the various > threads on optimizing slow Clojure code. > > I note that the repo does not contain the data file which your code runs > against? > > David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
