Subject: Re: speed results
From: Joaquín Cuenca Abela (cuenca@celium.net)
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 23:37:38 CDT
ops, but recipient...
Joaquín Cuenca Abela wrote:
>
> Sam TH wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 04:17:35AM +0200, Joaqu?n Cuenca Abela wrote:
> > > In my tests, the algorithm to write a new word is ~O(n^2.5)
> > > Attached is a graph showing time(nb of words).
> > >
> > > I think that we should aim for 1.0 at (ideally) O(1), or at least
> > > O(log(n)).
> > > Worse than that is simply unacceptable.
> > >
> >
> > How would we do better than O(n), where n is the number of words? It
> > can't get faster, the more words we add. But I agree that O(n**2.5)
> > is bad.
>
> of course, you're right (I think that I need some sleep).
> I just plotted "time elapsed from the last word to the current one" vs
> "number of words typed".
> Ideally, it should be O(1), and we get something like O(n).
>
> http://www.ie2.u-psud.fr/~cuenca/speed3.png
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Joaquín Cuenca Abela
> cuenca@celium.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 23:37:46 CDT
