Re: Evolving a faster filter?

It needs to run fast, fast, fast.

Hm. Not a lot to go on. A sanitised peak at one or two of your filters would be nice.

How does reducing 100,000 objects to 9193 by filtering them on each of 100 hundred fields in 3/4 second stack up?

C:\test>1011850 -O=100000
Dict read at C:\test\1011850.pl line 96.
objects loaded at C:\test\1011850.pl line 106.
App created at C:\test\1011850.pl line 112.
Ovid: (optimal ordering) returned 9193 objs in 4.447958 seconds
Ovid: (pessimal ordering) returned 9193 objs in 7.236690 seconds
RichardK: (optimal ordering) returned 9193 objs in 4.065038 seconds
RichardK: (pessimal ordering) returned 9193 objs in 6.219226 seconds
BUK: returned 9193 objs in 0.760572 seconds
Filters run at C:\test\1011850.pl line 138.
[download]

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re: Evolving a faster filter? Download Code


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks