So I've just replaced all three of the switch scoring steps with if/else cascades, and here's the spectacular results. Thanks, guys!
Field of Science
-
-
From Valley Forge to the Lab: Parallels between Washington's Maneuvers and Drug Development4 weeks ago in The Curious Wavefunction
-
Political pollsters are pretending they know what's happening. They don't.4 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
-
-
Course Corrections5 months ago in Angry by Choice
Thank you for the comments!
The profiling I did yesterday, using DProf as suggested in a comment from Keith, showed that most of the runtime was spent in the Switch statements that are the heart of the sliding-window scoring algorithm. In new comments, Keith and Conrad explained that 'Switch' is not the fastest way to do the scoring, and that replacing it with a cascade of if/else statements could be a lot faster. (Faithful commenter Neil had also pointed out that Switch is buggy, but it wasn't setting off any alarms.)
So I've just replaced all three of the switch scoring steps with if/else cascades, and here's the spectacular results. Thanks, guys!
So I've just replaced all three of the switch scoring steps with if/else cascades, and here's the spectacular results. Thanks, guys!
2 comments:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow! I did mention that using Switch was a bad idea in your original post; but would not have guessed that its performance was so poor as used here.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think Neil deserves the prize for the most foresight.
ReplyDelete