everything is working fine...see the post from yesterday called 'when
looking for performance consider cheating' for an up to date explanation
of how and where i cheated to speed it up...
Jim
On 04/09/12 04:42, Bill Robertson wrote:
Did you figure out what was going on?
--
You received this m
Did you figure out what was going on?
--
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 unsubscrib
JESUS CHRIST!
What the hell just happened? I used clojure 1.5 alpha 3 that has the new
reducers and now i get back the same result in 3 seconds
HOW ON EARTH IS THAT POSSIBLE? I mean i've watched the videos but i
would never expect so much performance increase!!! what is happening? Is
my alg
On 18/08/12 13:57, Michael Gardner wrote:
Until the reducers library is ready, you could try something like this (no
guarantees that this is an optimal implementation!):
(defn with-thread-pool* [num-threads f]
(let [pool (java.util.concurrent.Executors/newFixedThreadPool num-threads)]
On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
> As far as pmap goes, I originally thought of starting a new future for each
> starting branch but that is what pmap does essentially, so it looked very
> handy at first...
Yes, pmap is essentially a trap in that it looks like the perfect too
On 18/08/12 13:13, Michael Gardner wrote:
If you haven't already, start by eliminating reflection warnings[1].
As for pmap, it's unfortunately useless. You could roll your own using e.g.
Java's thread pools, or you could wait for the new reducers library[2].
Reducers should offer not only usef
If you haven't already, start by eliminating reflection warnings[1].
As for pmap, it's unfortunately useless. You could roll your own using e.g.
Java's thread pools, or you could wait for the new reducers library[2].
Reducers should offer not only useful parallelism, but also better performance
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
> As i was saying the design is pretty and elegant (and lazy!)...Unfortunately
> it is terribly slow! I mean unbelievably slow...4-5 min to reach level 4?
> How am I ever going to train by evolutionary means if searching takes so
> much time
Hi all,
I really need your advice/help with something I was not expecting! let
me explain...
after spending almost a week experimenting with different designs for my
chess minimax algorithm, I settled down on a design that I like. I like
it because it is rather functional (as opposed to my Ja
