Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

> > > This indicates an elapsed time of less than 3 ms ...
> >
> > Among other things, the difference in normalization between the
> > implementations is quite different.
> > In an initial attempt to make them more comparable...
>
> Now you're changing the rules after the competition has started.
> Not a sign of good sportsmanship, Neo!

The provided implementation was not similarly generic or normalized. To make a very rough comparision, I simplified my implementation to that which was provided. In general, XDb1 can't compete with RM in the scope of a single table's worth of data since XDb1 has the overhead of variable storage structures for each table cell. An yes, IDs are faster than text so the comparision is far from perfect. XDb1 should gain advantage as more tables are joined. The provided solution doesn't join any tables since it is less generic and unnormalized.

As I said earlier, in the simplfied case, it takes XDb1 2 or 3 ms on a 500 Mhz, 512MB Dell PowerEdge Server. I ran the provided SQL Server script on the same machine and the report generation takes 65 ms (based on the avg of the 3 runs below):

Starting time Ending time Time Elapsed ------------- ------------ ------------

14:44:57.670   14:44:57.733  67 ms
15:02:26.233   15:02:26.297  64 ms
15:07:57.780   15:07:57.843  63 ms

What might I be doing wrong to get results different than yours? Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 23:22:24 CEST