Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)
From: Gene Wirchenko (genew_at_mail.ocis.net)
Date: 05/26/04
- Previous message: Michael Feathers: "Re: Major steps of OOD"
- In reply to: Hugo Kornelis: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
- Next in thread: Hugo Kornelis: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
- Reply: Hugo Kornelis: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 19:01:43 -0700
Hugo Kornelis <hugo@pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote:
[snip]
>The elapsed time reported by SET STATISTICS TIME is close to the elapsed
>time I calculated by comparing start and end time, but there should have
>been no difference at all (reported elapsed: 1106144 ms; my calculation
>says 18:47:413 or 1127413 ms - a 21 sec difference!). The cpu time
>reported by SET STATISTICS TIME is 939797 ms, so it looks as if there's
>little time lost while waiting.
What about the possibility of round-off error?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
- Previous message: Michael Feathers: "Re: Major steps of OOD"
- In reply to: Hugo Kornelis: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
- Next in thread: Hugo Kornelis: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
- Reply: Hugo Kornelis: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|