Whats faster than array?

Hey there everyone. I got a problem. I need to compare two text files, each a couple of thousand words. The 1st is sorted, the second is un-sorted and must remain so. I need to compare the second file to the first and print out all the words that were in the first list and indicate which of those were present in the second. Speed is important, the faster the better. I think that using an array would be far to slow, not sure if that is true though, if anybody has any ideas or examples could they please help.
example
file1: file2:
abs me
car pig
pig
output:
abs, no
car, no
pig, yes
Thanks

I tried using a HashSet just there but was getting the following compile errors:
code:
import java.util.*;
class Hash
public static void main(String args[])
HashSet set = New HashSet();
//for each word in first file:
set.add(word);
//for each word in secondfile:
System.out.println(word + ": " + (set.contains(word)? "yes" : "no"));
errors:
Hash.java:8: ';' expected
HashSet set = New HashSet();
^
Hash.java:8: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : variable New
location: class Hash
HashSet set = New HashSet();
^
Hash.java:10: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : variable word
location: class Hash
set.add(word);
^
Hash.java:12: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : variable word
location: class Hash
System.out.println(word + ": " + (set.contains(word)? "yes" : "no"));
^
Hash.java:12: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : variable word
location: class Hash
System.out.println(word + ": " + (set.contains(word)? "yes" : "no"));
^
5 errors
Why is that?, I followed another example from a book and got similar errors. Any ideas?

Similar Messages

  • Problems running basic text in aftereffects faster than 19fps... what exactly do I need?

    OK, so I finaly upgraded my computer into the mild 21st century, and to my disapointment, I cannot seem to run anything as smoothly as I had thought.
    These are the specs for my computer...
    ASUS m5a99x EVO motherboard
    8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram
    NVIDIA 9800gt 1 gig ddr3 gpu
    AMD Phenom II x4 B50 Processor at 3.2ghz (IE its an AMD athlon II 450 X3 3.2ghz with its fourth core unlocked (of which i have had no problems with thus far, as it seems to be very stable)
    150 gig 7200 sata 2 harddrive (OLD)
    200 gig 5400 sata 2 hard drive (OLD AS SH*T)
    300ghz portable usb2 hd (7200) (2 years old)
    Basicly, I cant seem to run even basic text in after effects faster than 19 FPS.
    I've tried to change the resolution to half, and even a fourth, and that didnt work at all, infact it made it run about 1 frame worse.
    I tried changing the Open gl texture memory, raising and lowering, but to no avail, Ive changed the ram usage in after effects to use 2 gigs per core, then one gig, then turned off multiframe rendering alltogether, and nothing.
    I feel like ive tried everything in my power.
    Now the Imacs at my school, they run the program smooth as hell... and they arent that much better, spec wise than my computer.
    Even my friends Imac can run it smooth, and he only has an I5 cpu at 2.4ghz, which is fine and my understanding of cpus is that those are better proccessors, but its not that much better, and even still, why would that be neccesary just to run text scrolling accross the screen?
    Even more so, why would changing the resolution not have any effect?
    What exactly do I need to run after effects smoothly for a basic text scroll at say, 720P?
    I need to know what to upgrade, soon I plan to get cs6 and I would like to have a computer that can edit basic HD properly.
    What I realy dont get is that I know people with laptops that are running AE smoothly and these are much worse than the specs on my machine, some even with only 4 gigs of ram...
    Is there something wrong, do I have some sort of frame limiter thats capping at 19 fps? is there some sort of memory leak?
    Any help would be much apreciated.
    Now the only thing I can think of thats holding me back is the crappy hard drives, every thing else seems like it should at least run text on after effects at 30 fps.

    thanks, that at least is enough to get me started, lol I have a deadline tomorrow and have been burning a lot of time on just trying to get this to run smooth.
    BTW, I am running the project off of the portable, I switched from the old, but faster harddrive that was sata2 to the portable given I thought that might increase the speed, which it didnt.
    what I might do is crack the case and just plug it straight into the computer, though I am hesitant to do so as if I were going to do that, I might as well just purchase a usb 3.0 one and do that so i can get sata 3 out of it, since those cases dont exactly just snap back together.
    When I say basic text, I mean layered text, just word after word in order. I honestly dont have any plugins that I know of, (if I had the money for them I would have spent it on a better computer probably) so what I have is what came with the master collection.
    And when I say 19 FPS I mean spacebar...
    NOW I KNOW, that Im not garunteed 30 fps when running the preview, but when I use the mac, it previews fine... and i just looked up my CPU in comparison to the I5 in the IMAC that I was refering to, and mine is actualy faster according to some benchmarks, granted its not faster than the vast majority of I5s and I7s, but the particular ones in the computers I was refering to, mine is actualy faster over all, so I figure its not a CPU thing (unless its a -our software only works right on INTEL- thing).
    Now as far as the 3d camera, yes I am using it, but even when I run the text without a camera function (ie the thing that you have in your comp) or any sort of 3d layering it runs just as slow.
    The Audio might be a problem, I used to have a soundcard, but that died about a year ago so I have been using onboard sound (realtek HD something) which truly sucks in comparison to a proper sound card, but I cant imagine the IMACs have anything better, I mean the sound from the Imac kinda sucks alltogether, dosent even have any sort of virtual surround... But a driver issue it could be, realtek is kind of ghetto in that regard.
    I will try some of the tips above (the open gl and the preview output and such), and thank you very much.
    *EDIT*
    OK, so with the preview output, I have computer monitor only? is that what you ment?
    *EDIT*
    OK, so I did the OpenGL thing, removed it, and for a brief few secconds, it started to run at a mix of 25 to 30 fps, then, when I went to play it again, it was back at 19.

  • While playing WoW, i have my retina plugged in and it is losing battery faster than it can charge.  What is going on??

    While playing WoW, i have my retina plugged in and it is losing battery faster than it can charge.  What is going on??

    Typh0nx wrote:
    What is going on??
    Your using more energy to play WOW and there isn't any to charge the battery.
    You do have a overly unnecessary, power hungry, excessively  high resolution screen with a bloated OS X version and your also playing 3D games on it, that's what you should expect to occur.

  • Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

    We just purchased a brand new system to replace a system that has been in production for over 5 years and I am finding very disappointing performance results.
    The old system is a SunBlade 2000( 2x 900 MHz, 4 GB RAM, Solaris 9) with a Sun T3 fiber array (9 x 36 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare).
    The new system is a Sun T2000 ( 8-Core 1.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Solaris 10) with a Sun 3320 SCSI array (12 x 300 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare) + Ultra 320 SCSI card.
    I first moved over our applications and ran a few tests and found that jobs were taking about 50% longer to complete. So I decided to take the application out of the equation and just run some basic test to compare the 2 systems.
    Using some basic dd tests, I could push about 90 MB/s through the T3 and only about 40 MB/s through the 3320. I also tried running IOZone and it showed the same results. The T3 was 40%-50% faster on all reads, writes and combination operations. I tried all sorts of configurations with the 3320 including single bus and split bus as well as different RAID levels. Nothing seems to help the 3320.
    I've opened a support case with Sun but they are bouncing me around support from group to group, from hardware to storage to kernel and back again. My VAR is doesn�t seem too interested in helping either. I'm still hoping for the best because my upper management is not happy that we spent over $65K for new equipment and our applications are going to be slower.
    Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

    Not sure if any of this will help. but it doesn't hurt to cover the basics. You might want to start by double checking the SCSI negotiation between the server and the array. Below is an example from our 3310 that we've deliberately misconfigured.
    sccli> show channels
    Ch Type Media Speed Width PID / SID
    0 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
    *1 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow 1 / N/A*
    2 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
    *3 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow N/A / 1*
    6 Drive FC(L) 1G Narrow N/A / N/A
    7 Host LAN N/A Serial N/A / N/A
    sccli>
    What we have here are host channels that have not negotiated UP to desired parameters. Please keep in mind that we've set this up purposely in our lab for training. As you can see the host connections never go into synchronous transfer and they also never negotiate to a wide bus width. This effectively throttles down the connection between the server and array. There are several causes for these types of symptoms.
    - Faulty or incorrect termination.
    - Mismatched hardware.
    - Faulty cable
    - HBA drivers
    - Incorrect SCSI settings.
    Since you mentioned that you have Ultra 320 HBAs and the array is capable of negotiating up to these speeds, I'd suggest you check the negotiated link speed between your array and server. If you find that the SCSI channel is not negotiating up to the desired value, one place you can check would be the "SCSI Options" in the /etc/system file.
    Below is a bit mask for the various setting options
    * SCSI subsystem options
    * Following are applicable to all interconnects
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_LINK 0x10 /* Global linked commands */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_TAG 0x80 /* Global tagged command support */
    * Following are for parallel SCSI only
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_DR 0x8 /* Global disconnect/reconnect */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_SYNC 0x20 /* Global synchronous xfer capability */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_PARITY 0x40 /* Global parity support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST 0x100 /* Global FAST scsi support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_WIDE 0x200 /* Global WIDE scsi support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST20 0x400 /* Global FAST20 scsi support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST40 0x800 /* Global FAST40 scsi support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST80 0x1000 /* Global FAST80 scsi support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST160 0x2000 /* Global FAST160 scsi support */
    #define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST320 0x4000 /* Global FAST320 scsi support */
    Most systems have a setting of 7f8 which would only bring you to Ultra Fast Wide at 40MB per sec. Factor in the wide bus and your effective through put would be 80MB. If you find that the SCSI Options on your system are not set to support the Ultra 320 HBAs, you may want to bump up the settings here.
    On the array side, you could also check to see if write cache is turned on and working.
    sccli> show cache-parameters
    mode: write-back
    optimization: sequential
    sync-period: disabled
    current-global-write-policy: write-through
    sccli>
    In this array, the global cache setting is correctly set for write-back, but because of a fault in the array, the cache policy has defaulted to write-through. This is most common in single controller arrays (which this is). The array requires two operational controllers for write cache to be in effect.
    Hopefully there is something here that you can use....

  • Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

    I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
    compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
    What's wrong with this picture?

    Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
    As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

  • New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

    So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
    I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
    Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally.  I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC.  Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
    And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
    I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

    That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
    I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
    Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth.  It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
    Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
    This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively).  Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

  • How can I get rid of this Lollipop update?  My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

    I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem.  Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen.  The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
    Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

    Thanks.  I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager.  It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
    I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources.  (Fresh boot and all)
    What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
    No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
    <Rant off>

  • Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

    A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
    The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
    It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
    I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
    Thanks for any suggestions.
    -Vincent

    So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
    That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
    At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
    Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
    Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
    I've written a better explaination here
    click for text doc

  • Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

    My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

    Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
    If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
    Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
    You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

  • Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

    Hey,
    Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
    Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
    iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
    About 20-100 layers
    A combination of vector and bitmap layers
    Many of the layers use layer styles
    On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
    This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
    So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
    Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
    Thanks for your help!

    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    Note that this is boilerplate text.
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
    the type of file you were working on,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
    if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
    etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
    a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • Re:  Is ethernet cable to AEBS (b/g) faster than wireless connection?

    Just wondering if an ethernet cable from my AEBS (b/g) to my older iMac G5 (2.0 GHz) is faster than having it connected wirelessly?

    What ethernet would I likely have? Fast ethernet?
    Your AEBS comes with a combination 10/100 Mbps "fast" Ethernet switch built-in.
    When would one encounter a gigabit ethernet?
    The newer 802.11n (2nd generation) AEBSn and Time Capsule have Gigabit Ethernet capability. To take advantage of this technology all devices would need to be Gigabit Ethernet enabled.
    The short of it is that if my AEBS is b/g, the max would be 54 mbps and a fast ethernet would almost double this. yes?
    Correct.

  • Why is JVM faster than CLR?

    hi
    i wrote a N-body algorithm in both Java and C# (shown below). i executed it using .NET CLR and JDK1.4.1. in JDK it is twice as fast as .NET (on win2000). now i am trying to find out why is it so??
    the interesting thing is that i ran some other algorithms like FFT and graph alogrithms, and they are faster in .NET. so i want to find is there some operation in the below algorithm that is making it run faster in JDK.
    in general, what can the possible reasons be for JVM to run faster than CLR?
    thanks
    double G = 6.6726E-11;
    double difference = 0.0;
    for(int i=0; i<numBodies; i++)
         accelarations[i] = 0.0;
         for(int j=0; j<numBodies; j++)
              if(i != j)
              difference = radii[i] - radii[j];
              if(difference != 0)
              accelarations[i] += masses/(Math.pow(difference, 2));
         accelarations[i] *= G;

    Interesting N-Body problem that treats accelerations as scalars.
    Anyway, if there is no optimisation for small integer powers in the Math.pow() method, then I'd expect almost all the time is used there or in its equivalent in .NET. Hardly a meaningful test of relative performance.
    Try using (difference * difference) instead.
    Sylvia.

  • Web Report - ABAP Vs JAVA engine - ABAP 10 times faster than JAVA

    Guys,
    I want to share what we found in our project and see if any of you have insights
    into our findings.We are on NW2004S SP14 and we are moving to SP15 in a couple of weeks.We created query, developed WAD for it and executing the WAD takes for this query takes 22 secs (Vs 2 secs using ABAP) the query output has 1 million records and most of the actions we take from that point on like right click on account takes 20 secs (Vs 0 secs/instant using ABAP) , drilldown to level 4 of account hierarchy takes 58 secs (Vs 5 secs using ABAP), drilldown on cost center level 6 takes 42 secs (Vs 4 secs using ABAP), , right click on cost center takes 32 secs (Vs 3 secs using ABAP), ..etc.
    Basically every action we take in the JAVA report takes an average of  28 secs.There are 9 aggregates built on the cube that are barely hit by this query but the same query performing same actions with same selections hit the aggregates many many times.The questions I have is why is ABAP so fast compared to JAVA ? What is true explanation behind this behavior ? What are the dis-advantages by using ABAP engine ? Users are loving the performance and features of ABAP while they weren't really on board with the original JAVA report (as it was slow). ABAP is sure enough 10 times faster than JAVA. Query/Query Properties are exactly the same in ABAP and JAVA.Please explain.
    Cheers
    RT

    Hi All,
    Thanks to all you for your responses. I appreciate your time for going through my questions and coming forward to express your views.
    However, I was looking for more specific "factual" answers. My question is "What does a client miss if they opt to install only ABAP based BI 7.0, as against JAVA Based BI 7.0"
    thanks again.
    Naga

  • "tp import all" runs 24 times faster than "tp import TR "  for long queue?

    After a test upgrade to ECC 6.0, I processed 1200 individual transports in 12 hours. When I rebuilt the queue of 1200 transports and processed "tp import all", it completed in 30 minutes.
    Should I expect "tp import all" to process 24 times faster than individual imports?
    800 transports were client independent (code) and 400 transports were client-specific (configuration).
    What run times have you seen?
    What problems with "tp import all" have you seen?
    Best regards,
    Gary Sherwood

    Hi Gary
    You don't know the 800 transports which are wating for the import, what could be render your system in case of import all. so, that's why , i will prefer to you import individual request instead of import all.
    offcourse, Import all are faster than the individual because it prepare all steps once to start import,
    Regards
    Anwer Waseem

  • How to format date faster than SimpleDateFormat

    Hi All,
    Can someone tell me way to format the date faster than SimpleDateFormat.
    Thanks in advance.
    Cheers!!
    Puneet

    At times when we declare formatter again and again,
    the SimpleDateFormat's performance is less as
    compared to the apache's FastDateFormat..1) Decaring it wouldn't be what makes it slow. Instantiating it would.
    2) As already stated--simply don't instantiate that many of them. Create a few and reuse them.
    3) So what if the other one is faster? Have you run into actual problems with SimpleDateFormat being a bottleneck? A Ferrari is faster than my car, but it makes no significant difference for how I use a car. I would not realize any meaningful speed improvement if I had a Ferrari.
    4) If the other one is faster and it's that buggerall important, then use the faster one.
    . So I was
    trying to find out if Sun has something to solve my
    problem.You can peruse the API docs as well as anybody else.
    I am using the formatting in batch process
    so data to process is huge.Have you found a bottleneck? Have you put a profiler on it? Have you determined that it's the parsing that's causing the problems and that creating is negligible?

Maybe you are looking for

  • While uploading the data

    hi i am uploading the data to su01 to change the password. while i am uploading passwords with normal characters , password is changed..if i upload passwords with strings it is showing the error "The entered password is not downward compatible (see l

  • Adobe Elements 6

    I have just bought a new Dell computer with windows 7 and I want to re-install Adobe Acrobate Elements 6 on it. I tried doing it and it says that the PDF printer won't work.  What do I need to do. I have to create PDF files.

  • Please recommend a sound card for TV hoo

    I want to connect left & right channel outputs to a TV and have my desktop audio standard setup. Can anyone recommend a card for me?

  • Where is a German language pack for Firefox 5.0 64bit?

    Is a German language pack available for Firefox 5.0 64-bit?

  • Lock Flag is 1 in mtl_transactions_interface

    HI Team, We can see that 5 Pending Transactions are stuck and can't close the inventory period. While checking we have found that the Lock Flag is 1 i the table mtl_transactions_interface for all the stuck transactions. Please advice Thanks Suresh.S>