Timeline for How to Derive Tuples Without Replacement
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2015 at 13:19 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @FredSimons It seems that in version 7 DeleteDuplicates was very inefficient in this application. Using Union yields more than an order of magnitude improvement. In 10.0.2 Union is also faster but only fractionally. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 12:51 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @FredSimons Thanks for the notice. I confirm the performance you report in 10.0.2 under Windows using the data from Simon's answer above. My function takes only two second while his takes five. It seems that since version 7 (what I was using before) something used in my code has been greatly optimized. I'll try to track down precisely what it is. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 10:10 | comment | added | Fred Simons | @Mr.Wizard Thank you and Simon very much for showing these two wonderful functions uniqueTuples. However, I could not reproduce the claim that Simon's function is considerably faster than Mr.Wizard's one. On my computer, it is even two times slower. This might very well be related to a possible bug in Module, as described here. | |
| Mar 17, 2013 at 11:44 | history | bounty awarded | Mr.Wizard | ||
| Mar 3, 2013 at 20:11 | comment | added | Rojo | I had missed this, nice one | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 15:00 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | Simon, it's good have you aboard. Nicely done. | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 14:32 | comment | added | rcollyer | +1, I've always liked inner functions, plus a clever use of Sequence and Downvalues. | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 14:20 | history | answered | Simon Woods | CC BY-SA 3.0 |