@Craig
I also found the "sort" method faster than the "repeat" method on
a PPC. On intel, under several OSes, here always won the [1] below.
@Bernd
I didn't include your solution because pre-sorting wastes too
much time. Perhaps sorting could be included in your binary loop?
@Geoff
You could also try with a critical value near the "edges":
greatestLessThanRepeat(L,1) and
greatestLessThanRepeat(L,1000000000-1)
and then average your three runs?
>From my tests
(referencing the list gives moreover a smallincrease in speed.
Empty list members are not handled, LC handles empty as zero):
** The simplest is the fastest **
[1] (contributed by P.M.B.)
function getMaxLessThan tList,maxVal
repeat for each item i in tList
if i < maxVal then put i & comma after outList
end repeat
return max(outList)
end getMaxLessThan
Even the clever idea of max-finding in the same loop
[2] (contributed by G.C.)
function greatestLessThanRepeat pList,V
put empty into R
repeat for each item i in pList
if i < V and i > R then put i into R
end repeat
return R
end greatestLessThanRepeat
is *slightly* slower.
[3] (contributed by me)
function greatestMemberSmallerThan L,V
put -10^15 into z[true]
repeat for each item x in L
put comma & x after z[x<v]
end repeat
return max( z[true] )
end greatestMemberSmallerThan
is slowest (close to the above only if the smaller-than-list is nearly
the full input list).
And it will be of about the same speed only if the smallest member of
the list that is greater v (x>v) is also asked for, with the same v.
Hermann
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
