| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
Back with results! :)
I tried my code and your code. My code ran for 13858 seconds and your code ran for 16968 seconds. I thought it will reduce the time a little but it didn't, maybe because the machine was being used by others at that time but it is a big difference. Do you have any other suggestions? 4 hours for searching is quite a lot of time :(
| [reply] |
You should probably test on a smaller data set then? Anyway, I'm getting different results, my original code being roughly 55% faster on my single user machine (as expected).
I added a native Perl implementation that walks the tree itself with no overhead and that gains you another significant speed boost.
D:\ENV>perl pm10.pl
Holli (New). Found: 1 ( D:\env\Videos/2012 )
Time: -19
Holli (original). Found: 1 ( d:\env/Videos/2012 )
Time: -32
ovedpo15. Found: 1 ( d:/env/Videos/2012 )
Time: -51
Using this code.
holli
You can lead your users to water, but alas, you cannot drown them.
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |