After looking at it more, it appears that I was executing something
intense and lazy immediately prior to this function which then
included a doall upon the result of the previous calculation. When I
modified the previous function to remove its laziness, the time
required for this calculation drop
> Is there something besides type-hinting that I'm missing?
Is there any chance that you can make a sample data set/complete script
available?
That would make it easier to try different things and figure out where
the problem is.
Sincerely,
Daniel Solano Gómez
pgp40moegLknA.pgp
Description: P
I've actually tried with and without type hinting and end up with
similar performance numbers. I haven't tried type hinting the second
execution.
On Feb 18, 7:49 am, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Daniel Werner
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 6:20 am, Nick wrote:
> >> (let
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Daniel Werner
wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:20 am, Nick wrote:
>> (let [ newv1 (time (doall (map (fn [v u I] (+ ^java.lang.Double v (*
>> 0.5 (+ (* (+ (* 0.04 ^java.lang.Double v) 5) ^java.lang.Double v) 140
>> (- ^java.lang.Double u) ^java.lang.Double I v u I)))
>>
On Feb 16, 6:20 am, Nick wrote:
> (let [ newv1 (time (doall (map (fn [v u I] (+ ^java.lang.Double v (*
> 0.5 (+ (* (+ (* 0.04 ^java.lang.Double v) 5) ^java.lang.Double v) 140
> (- ^java.lang.Double u) ^java.lang.Double I v u I)))
> newv (time (doall (map (fn [v u I] (+ v (* 0.5 (+ (
Is there something besides type-hinting that I'm missing?
--
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
