Timeline for DeleteDuplicatesBy is not performing as I'd hoped. Am I missing something?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2015 at 14:02 | comment | added | Jacob Akkerboom | Anyway your function is still faster. | |
| Apr 20, 2015 at 13:45 | comment | added | Jacob Akkerboom |
A BenchMarkPlot in another answer still works, but I cannot get the ones in your answer to work for now.
|
|
| Apr 20, 2015 at 13:28 | comment | added | Jacob Akkerboom |
Mr.W, (@TaliesinBeynon), it seems the plots in your answer no longer work in v10.1.0. It seems that the function IndexBy has been removed and that BenchmarkPlot still refers to this. It also doesn't work without the options "IncludeFits" -> True. I will see if any other BenchmarkPlot work.
|
|
| Feb 10, 2015 at 12:35 | history | edited | Mr.Wizard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Jul 20, 2014 at 2:04 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @TaliesinBeynon Thanks for the instruction. :-) | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 21:40 | comment | added | Taliesin Beynon | thanks for the analysis. You should avoid doing the 2^n inside the example constructor function and use PowerRange instead of Range when supplying Benchmark or BenchmarkPlot with the range of n to test. This is because the library of time complexities does not assume that you've already done the transformation n -> log n, so you get those weird exponential fits. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 | history | answered | Mr.Wizard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |