On 9/26/10 2:30 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 26/09/2010 19:27, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
2010/9/26 Gilles Sadowski<[email protected]>:
[...]
1) do nothing to check the array is the same between calls and blindly
assumes it IS the same. Users would really need to call clearCache
when they provide a new array
pros: very simple
cons: error-prone for the user as it relies only on reading and
understanding a documentation that would change with new version
2) check only array reference equality (with ==) to check the array
is the same as the previous call or not. Users would need to call
clearCache only if they use the same array but have changed its
content.
pros: trade-off between efficiency and reliability,
handles most cases properly
cons: may be wrong in corner cases
3) check array content using an hash code. Users would generally don't
need to call clearCache at all so it would not be provided
pros: works in all cases
cons: add linear cost for array checking
4) remove the double[] values parameter from the API and use a separate
addValues method, hence the class will reset its cache only when
addValues is called
pros: works in all cases
cons: Percentile could not implement UnivariateStatistic anymore
My preference is choice 2.
What do you think ?
IIUC, the interface method ("evaluate") was designed around the assumption
that successive calls are independent: the array argument is not
encapsulated for further processing (e.g. caching).
IMO, the equality check and the "clearCache" method look like workarounds,
not a clean solution.
As an example, what if a user calls "evaluate" several times alternating on
two different arrays:
---CUT---
double[] a = new double[] {1, 2, 3};
double[] b = new double[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
Percentile p = new Percentile();
dourble r;
r = p.evaluate(a, 50);
r = p.evaluate(b, 50);
r = p.evaluate(a, 50);
r = p.evaluate(b, 50);
// etc.
---CUT---
Doesn't this kind of use-case nullify the expected optimization?
If the array is going to be reused, the user call should reflect that fact;
e.g. by passing the array in a constructor:
---CUT---
double[] a = new double[] {1, 2, 3};
double[] b = new double[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
Percentile pA = new Percentile(a);
Percentile pB = new Percentile(b);
double r;
r = pA.evaluate(50);
r = pB.evaluate(50);
r = pA.evaluate(50);
r = pB.evaluate(50);
---CUT---
That way, later calls can benefit from whatever preprocessing was done in
previous calls.
The instance will always control all the information needed (e.g. after a
call to an "addValues" method) for the processing without the need to rely
on the user for calling "clearCache" whenever necessary.
Gilles
+1
I think that is a really good idea and I agree on the points made.
This proposal is point 4. It breaks the UnivariateStatistic API and it
breaks what the user found interesting in this API, i.e. have a general
statistics framework where one statistic can be replaced by another one.
If you read again one of my earlier messages from today, we will combine
this method (i.e. evaluate without values) and the UnivariateStatistics API.
Perhaps we could add these new methods (i.e. addValues and evaluate
without values) to UnivariateStatistics, but this can only be done on 3.0.
We could add to AbstractUnivariateStatistics in 2.x and update the
interface in 3.0, if we can work out and agree on the setData() idea
in my last post. While only some statistics can benefit internally
from caching, I think the setData idea is consistent with
UnivariateStatistics, as this is the interface for stats that
require the full set of data to be stored in memory.
Phil
Luc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
