Multiplication with zero

Discussion in 'Java' started by logiclips@yahoo.com, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Hi,

    I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another dataset. The
    number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different datasets,
    although they are of the same size. What is the reason for this
    variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the dataset such
    that multiplication with zero is faster than any other multiplication.
    So the more zeros the faster? Or is it maybe a memory problem?

    Thanks,

    Peter Vermeer
    , Feb 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another dataset. The
    > number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    > The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different datasets,
    > although they are of the same size. What is the reason for this
    > variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the dataset such
    > that multiplication with zero is faster than any other multiplication.
    > So the more zeros the faster? Or is it maybe a memory problem?


    There are all sorts of effects that could give a 0.1 second variation in
    time unless you have things really well locked down.

    Do repeated runs with the same dataset take the same amount of time? In
    particular, try alternating runs with a "fast" and a "slow" data set.

    Patricia
    Patricia Shanahan, Feb 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On 6 Feb., 14:31, Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another dataset. The
    > > number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    > > The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different datasets,
    > > although they are of the same size. What is the reason for this
    > > variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the dataset such
    > > that multiplication with zero is faster than any other multiplication.
    > > So the more zeros the faster? Or is it maybe a memory problem?

    >
    > There are all sorts of effects that could give a 0.1 second variation in
    > time unless you have things really well locked down.
    >
    > Do repeated runs with the same dataset take the same amount of time? In
    > particular, try alternating runs with a "fast" and a "slow" data set.
    >
    > Patricia


    Well the problem is that I have only the results of the different
    datasets but I'm not able to test these anymore.
    BTW the total amount of processing time is approx 3.5 sec.
    Could the things mentioned above be a reason for the time variance?
    , Feb 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Oliver Wong Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 6 Feb., 14:31, Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >> > Hi,

    >>
    >> > I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another dataset. The
    >> > number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    >> > The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different datasets,
    >> > although they are of the same size. What is the reason for this
    >> > variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the dataset such
    >> > that multiplication with zero is faster than any other multiplication.
    >> > So the more zeros the faster? Or is it maybe a memory problem?

    >>
    >> There are all sorts of effects that could give a 0.1 second variation in
    >> time unless you have things really well locked down.
    >>

    [...]
    >
    > Could the things mentioned above be a reason for the time variance?


    Yes.

    - Oliver
    Oliver Wong, Feb 6, 2007
    #4
  5. wrote in
    news::

    > On 6 Feb., 14:31, Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >> > Hi,

    >>
    >> > I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another
    >> > dataset. The number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    >> > The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different
    >> > datasets, although they are of the same size. What is the reason
    >> > for this variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the
    >> > dataset such that multiplication with zero is faster than any
    >> > other multiplication. So the more zeros the faster? Or is it
    >> > maybe a memory problem?

    >>
    >> There are all sorts of effects that could give a 0.1 second
    >> variation in time unless you have things really well locked down.
    >>
    >> Do repeated runs with the same dataset take the same amount of
    >> time? In particular, try alternating runs with a "fast" and a
    >> "slow" data set.
    >>
    >> Patricia

    >
    > Well the problem is that I have only the results of the different
    > datasets but I'm not able to test these anymore.
    > BTW the total amount of processing time is approx 3.5 sec.


    If you're trying to significantly speed up that 3.5 seconds, then I'd
    suggest that attempting to optimize an operation that will, at best,
    result in a 0.2 second improvement is a less-than-optimal use of your
    time -- there are undoubtedly other optimizations that could result in
    greater speed improvement.

    Cheers
    GRB
    Greg R. Broderick, Feb 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    On 6 Feb., 20:59, "Greg R. Broderick" <gregb
    > wrote:
    > wrote innews::
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 6 Feb., 14:31, Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    > >> wrote:
    > >> > Hi,

    >
    > >> > I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another
    > >> > dataset. The number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    > >> > The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different
    > >> > datasets, although they are of the same size. What is the reason
    > >> > for this variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the
    > >> > dataset such that multiplication with zero is faster than any
    > >> > other multiplication. So the more zeros the faster? Or is it
    > >> > maybe a memory problem?

    >
    > >> There are all sorts of effects that could give a 0.1 second
    > >> variation in time unless you have things really well locked down.

    >
    > >> Do repeated runs with the same dataset take the same amount of
    > >> time? In particular, try alternating runs with a "fast" and a
    > >> "slow" data set.

    >
    > >> Patricia

    >
    > > Well the problem is that I have only the results of the different
    > > datasets but I'm not able to test these anymore.
    > > BTW the total amount of processing time is approx 3.5 sec.

    >
    > If you're trying to significantly speed up that 3.5 seconds, then I'd
    > suggest that attempting to optimize an operation that will, at best,
    > result in a 0.2 second improvement is a less-than-optimal use of your
    > time -- there are undoubtedly other optimizations that could result in
    > greater speed improvement.
    >
    > Cheers
    > GRB


    Actually I don't want to speed it up. I just want to know why these
    variations exist although the operations are always the same.

    Thanks,
    Peter
    , Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    On 7 fév, 11:43, wrote:
    > On 6 Feb., 20:59, "Greg R. Broderick" <gregb
    >
    >
    >
    > > wrote:
    > > wrote innews::

    >
    > > > On 6 Feb., 14:31, Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    > > >> wrote:
    > > >> > Hi,

    >
    > > >> > I'm having a dataset which I use to multiply with another
    > > >> > dataset. The number of multiplications is >5000 but constant.
    > > >> > The time for computing varies (~0.1-0.2 s) for different
    > > >> > datasets, although they are of the same size. What is the reason
    > > >> > for this variation? Is it because of the zeros that are in the
    > > >> > dataset such that multiplication with zero is faster than any
    > > >> > other multiplication. So the more zeros the faster? Or is it
    > > >> > maybe a memory problem?

    >
    > > >> There are all sorts of effects that could give a 0.1 second
    > > >> variation in time unless you have things really well locked down.

    >
    > > >> Do repeated runs with the same dataset take the same amount of
    > > >> time? In particular, try alternating runs with a "fast" and a
    > > >> "slow" data set.

    >
    > > >> Patricia

    >
    > > > Well the problem is that I have only the results of the different
    > > > datasets but I'm not able to test these anymore.
    > > > BTW the total amount of processing time is approx 3.5 sec.

    >
    > > If you're trying to significantly speed up that 3.5 seconds, then I'd
    > > suggest that attempting to optimize an operation that will, at best,
    > > result in a 0.2 second improvement is a less-than-optimal use of your
    > > time -- there are undoubtedly other optimizations that could result in
    > > greater speed improvement.

    >
    > > Cheers
    > > GRB

    >
    > Actually I don't want to speed it up. I just want to know why these
    > variations exist although the operations are always the same.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Peter


    If you are on windows, the resolution of the timer is about of 10 ms ,
    unless you use the new System.nanoTime(), which resolution is much
    finer, perhaps it's a problem of resolution of timer (for 0.1 - 0.2
    sec, it's probably not the cause).

    If the program use a database connection to retrieve the dataset,
    perhaps the network or the database is busy during your test

    The system is perhaps running another processes which use the CPU in
    the same time

    And if your program is multithreaded, other threads perhaps use the
    CPU

    So, there is multiple possible cause to explain your problem, we can't
    tell much better without description of the system

    (Sorry for my english, it's not my mnative language)
    , Feb 7, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Zhiqiang Ye
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    10,213
    Dan Pop
    Jun 28, 2004
  2. Gerard Flanagan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    426
    Terry Hancock
    Nov 19, 2005
  3. Christopher Benson-Manica

    Doubles and zero/negative zero

    Christopher Benson-Manica, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    656
    Walter
    Jul 1, 2004
  4. William Hughes
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,200
    Ben Bacarisse
    Mar 15, 2010
  5. eli m
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    343
    Geoff
    Mar 18, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page