|XP is just a number|
Re: Re: Re: Processing data with lot of math...by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on May 14, 2004 at 18:20 UTC||Need Help??|
Okay. From this post I think that my original post did not explain the method I was trying to outline very well. Also, looking back at itubs reply, he also seems not to have fully understood what I was getting at.
I've put together a crude simulation using some randomly generated data, and it seems that using my method will process:
Update Ignore the figures above. I discovered a stupidity in my testcase that meant I was doing way more work than I needed to. I can now processing 100,000 atoms using 50MB in under 4 minutes.
This is without any attempt to really optimise things. I have no real feel for how this compares with other methods as I don't know what other methods are used.
I don't know for sure that I am processing the data correctly.
If you have a smallish (1000 or 2000 atom) dataset (with the desired results for a specified cutoff), that you could make available to me somehow?
Posting this here is probably not a good idea:), but I could let you have my email id.
Then I could see if what I am doing even approximates to giving correct results before I go posting triumphantly.
Examine what is said, not who speaks."Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail