strangely enough Ive gotten no speedup at all from the substitution cost UArray (though I had to make it Int, Int to deal with digits.). But still I wonder if there's something else I missed. Im really curious what lazyness you used to go from 60 to 1.6? I always thought lazyness was automatic and seq made strictness possible.
thanks
Vishnu
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Daniel Fischer
<daniel.is.fischer@web.de> wrote:
Am Samstag 28 November 2009 02:04:31 schrieb Daniel Fischer:
> Make it
>
> distance orig new = f m n
>
> and no thunks need be written at all in this case.
> Cuts down running time by nearly half :)
>
> I think you could speed it up significantly by calculating the distance
> more lazily.
Yup :D
Timings here:
Your last ByteString code: 128s
That with corrected index calculation: 172s
Correct indices and distance orig new = f m n instead of memf m n: 99s
That and an array for the substitution cost: 64s
String IO, substitution cost array and a suitably lazy break-early distance function: 1.7s
That and a lazier surcharge function: 1.5s
The same with ByteString IO: 1.4s
Yes, I'd say that qualifies as a significant speedup.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe