My suggestions would be to replace
for t in sort(collect(wc), by=x -> (-x.second, x.first))
println(t.first, "\t", t.second)
end
with
customlt(a,b) = (b.second < a.second) ? true : b.second == a.second ? a.first
< b.first : false
function main()
:
:
for t in sort(collect(wc), lt=customlt)
println(t.first, "\t", t.second)
end
end
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:08:56 PM UTC+2, Dan wrote:
>
> Can you provide the comparable python code? Perhaps even the data used for
> testing?
>
> Since you are evaluating Julia, there are two important points to remember:
> 1) In Julia because the language is fast enough to implement basic
> functionality in Julia, then the distinction between Base Julia and
> additional packages is small. Opting to use 'just' the core makes less
> sense - the core is just a pre-compiled package.
> 2) The community is part of the language, so it should be regarded when
> making considerations.
>
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:21:51 PM UTC+2, Attila Zséder wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you all for the responses.
>>
>> 1. I tried simple profiling, but its output was difficult me to
>> interpret, maybe if i put more time in it. I will try ProfileView later.
>> 2. FastAnonymous gave me a serious speedup (20-30%). (But since it is an
>> external dependency, it's kind of cheating, seeing the purpose of this
>> small word count test)
>> 3. Using ASCIIString is not a good option right now, since there are
>> unicode characters there. I am trying with both UTF8String and
>> AbstractString, I don't see any difference in performance right now.
>> 4. Using ht_keyindex() is out of scope for me right now, because this is
>> a pet project, I just wanted to see how fast current implementation is,
>> without these kind of solutions.
>>
>> I think I will keep trying with later versions of julia, but with
>> sticking to the standard library only, without using any external packages.
>>
>> Attila
>>
>> 2015. november 29., vasárnap 17:59:42 UTC+1 időpontban Yichao Yu a
>> következőt írta:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Milan Bouchet-Valat <nali...@club.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Le dimanche 29 novembre 2015 à 08:28 -0800, Cedric St-Jean a écrit :
>>> >> What I would try:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. ProfileView to pinpoint the bottleneck further
>>> >> 2. FastAnonymous to fix the lambda
>>> >> 3. http://julia-demo.readthedocs.org/en/latest/manual/performance-tip
>>> >> s.html In particular, you may check `code_typed`. I don't have
>>> >> experience with `split` and `eachline`. It's possible that they are
>>> >> not type stable (the compiler can't predict their output's type). I
>>> >> would try `for w::ASCIIString in ...`
>>> >> 4. Dict{ASCIIString, Int}()
>>> >> 5. Your loop will hash each string twice. I don't know how to fix
>>> >> that, anyone?
>>> > You can use the unexported Base.ht_keyindex() function like this:
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/nalimilan/FreqTables.jl/blob/7884c000e6797d7ec621e07
>>> > b8da58e7939e39867/src/freqtable.jl#L36
>>> >
>>> > But this is at your own risk, as it may change without warning in a
>>> > future Julia release.
>>> >
>>> > We really need a public API for it.
>>>
>>> IIUC, https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/12157
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Good luck,
>>> >>
>>> >> Cédric
>>> >>
>>> >> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 8:08:49 PM UTC-5, Lampkld wrote:
>>> >> > Maybe it's the lambda? These are slow in julia right now.
>>>
>>
