Difference between revisions of "User:Strife Onizuka/String Tree"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is just a bit of silliness, it's sanity has not been vetted. The purpose of this code is to look at the costs of splitting a string into chunks of a specific size. The problem with getting all sequential chunks of a specific set size is that doing so is O(N<sup>2</sup>). This script hopes to reduce that. As previously stated, I have no idea if it does. It probably doesn't. I'm hoping for something like O(N* | This is just a bit of silliness, it's sanity has not been vetted. The purpose of this code is to look at the costs of splitting a string into chunks of a specific size. The problem with getting all sequential chunks of a specific set size is that doing so is '''O(N<sup>2</sup>)'''. This script hopes to reduce that. As previously stated, I have no idea if it does. It probably doesn't. I'm hoping for something like '''O(N*log<sub>2</sub>(N))'''. | ||
Results: It works! At 25 chunks you break even between just doing flat llGetSubString vs this. Changing how split is done will improve that. Weather or not it's faster I don't know, I've been running this in LSLEditor. My goal has been to reduce read bottlenecks on the string. The cost equation appears to be | Results: It works! At 25 chunks you break even between just doing flat llGetSubString vs this. Changing how split is done will improve that. Weather or not it's faster I don't know, I've been running this in LSLEditor. My goal has been to reduce read bottlenecks on the string. The cost equation appears to be '''N * (2.5 * log<sub>2</sub>(N) + 1)''' | ||
<lsl> | <lsl> | ||
integer chunk = -1; | integer chunk = -1; |
Revision as of 11:45, 14 March 2014
This is just a bit of silliness, it's sanity has not been vetted. The purpose of this code is to look at the costs of splitting a string into chunks of a specific size. The problem with getting all sequential chunks of a specific set size is that doing so is O(N2). This script hopes to reduce that. As previously stated, I have no idea if it does. It probably doesn't. I'm hoping for something like O(N*log2(N)).
Results: It works! At 25 chunks you break even between just doing flat llGetSubString vs this. Changing how split is done will improve that. Weather or not it's faster I don't know, I've been running this in LSLEditor. My goal has been to reduce read bottlenecks on the string. The cost equation appears to be N * (2.5 * log2(N) + 1) <lsl> integer chunk = -1; list buffer; integer cost;
string getNext() {
string last = llList2String(buffer, -1); buffer = llDeleteSubList(buffer, -1, -1); integer size = llStringLength(last); cost += ((size + chunk - 1) / chunk); if(size > chunk) { //The advantage of keeping the tree unbalanced this way is that split only needs to be cleverly calculated once. integer split = (1 << (llCeil(llLog((size + chunk - 1) / chunk) * 1.4426950408889634073599246810019) - 1)) * chunk; do { cost += ((size + chunk - 1) / chunk) * 2; buffer += llGetSubString(last, split, -1); last = llDeleteSubString(last, split, -1); size = split; split = split >> 1; } while(size > chunk); } else if (!size) chunk = -1; return last;
}
setup(string str, integer size) {
if(~chunk) llOwnerSay("Warning: Buffer may still be in use!"); buffer = [str]; chunk = size; cost = 0; size = (llStringLength(str) + chunk - 1) / chunk; llOwnerSay("Flat: " + ((size * (size + 1)) / 2) + " Chunks: " + chunk);
}
clear() {
chunk = -1;
}
default {
state_entry() { setup("12341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234", 1); string value; while(value = getNext()) ;//llOwnerSay(value); llOwnerSay("Cost: " + cost); }
} </lsl>