Hi, Find attached the results for RTL. Calum, I need your output to provide the a 3rd column with the AS name (like RTL output does) so that the query results are identical. There seems to be a mismatch in the number of records: RTL shows 21598 records loaded and RML 19439. Also, the update queries need to be the same. The update of the query consists of deleting the first record in the result: AS 3317 The number of records deleted in the update for RTL (1982) is irrelevant. The two benchmark times that matter is the query time and the update time. For RTL: 11 sec and 330 ms Regards Jose Regards On 10/18/05, Arkadiy Vertleyb <vertleyb@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Calum Grant" <calum@visula.org> wrote
This sounds like a correct result -- can I see the first 50 items?
The output is at the bottom.
This result is not sorted by (counter, city) as requested, which makes it impossible to compare it with mine.
I've managed to get my times down a bit by reimplementing the solution in a much more straightforward way. I can insert all 21421 items, calculate the number of neighbours, and display the top 500 in 235ms. Then I can remove 1982 items,
from where?
and redisplay the results, in 47 milliseconds. This of course makes me suspicious that I'm doing something wrong.........
This numbers are very impressive, but they don't tell much unless Jose runs it on his setup (after the result is properly sorted).
The solution I have is not terribly elegant from RML's point of view, since as I said before RML is designed for logical queries rather than numerical computation. It was not a terribly interesting problem because it needed just a single table with two indexes.
Hmm, I managed to program it in RTL as a single relational view on the original table, without doing _anything_ by hand. The correctness of this view is preseved by the library when the data is changed. In your case _you_ remove 1982 items. In my case _the library_ removes 1982 items. I think your solution is rather by-hand than RML-based.
Can you create a single RML query on the original table that solves the problem? Can you claim that using RML added a lot to your solution? Is it faster/more elegant/readable/etc. than just using STL directly?
Regards, Arkadiy
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost