Here is a little patch with two identical process.

I have many process like these in a bigger patch and need to have your opinion : what is the more efficient way ? 

Examples in my patch give the same results.

Here is a little patch with two identical process.
I have many process like these in a bigger patch and need to have your opinion : what is the more efficient way ? 
 Examples in my patch give the same results.

the-more-efficient

It seems to me that are no significant differences between the two in terms of computational expense. The one on the right uses five or six less objects to achieve the same result, so I might go with that. I'm sure you know this - in both left and right instances, the chain of events linked to your loadbang is doing nothing because all gates are closed (gates default to closed if you don't give them a second argument) and nothing is connected to the left inlets of the gates to control routing. You probably just left this aspect out when taking this from a larger patch.

The method on the left is faster than the method on the right when tested with uzi>cputimer.

On my machine Left does 10,000 calculations in around 74ms right comes in at around 100ms. For this reason i'd go for the left.

The method on the left is faster than the method on the right when tested with uzi>cputimer. 

John is right. The one on the left is faster. On my system (Windows XP running on a MacBook Pro) the left clocks in 10,000 calculations at between 25 and 35 msecs - depending on how I send the uzi, while the right side ranges between 40 and 90 msecs.

> Here is a little patch with two identical process. I have many

> process like these in a bigger patch and need to have your opinion :

> what is the more efficient way ? Examples in my patch give the same

Despite the measurements others have done, there is one rule to follow:

If its in the scheduler world, don't even think about efficiency, but 

think about clarity. The more clear version is preferable, even if its 

Your example shows that both versions are not very clear, and though you 

claim they do the same, they don't do the same for me. This is a matter 

As you did not describe what the patch supposed to do, I can only 

guess... I don't know what all the gates are for, so I skip them...

If I just look at the labels you put in there, result had been even wrong...

Maybe this is more efficient? It will give the labeled result...

Ok, I know this is not what you wanted, but its as close as someone can 

Even the most experienced Max expert usually isn't able to read 

thoughts... Imagine others haven't spent any time with your problem...

derrickgiscloux schrieb:
> Here is a little patch with two identical process. I have many
> process like these in a bigger patch and need to have your opinion :
> what is the more efficient way ? Examples in my patch give the same
> results.

Despite the measurements others have done, there is one rule to follow:
If its in the scheduler world, don't even think about efficiency, but 
think about clarity. The more clear version is preferable, even if its 
ten times slower.
Your example shows that both versions are not very clear, and though you 
claim they do the same, they don't do the same for me. This is a matter 
of clarity and testing.

As you did not describe what the patch supposed to do, I can only 
guess... I don't know what all the gates are for, so I skip them...
If I just look at the labels you put in there, result had been even wrong...

Ok, I know this is not what you wanted, but its as close as someone can 
get out of your description.
Even the most experienced Max expert usually isn't able to read 
thoughts... Imagine others haven't spent any time with your problem...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com

>On my machine Left does 10,000 calculations in around 74ms right >comes in at around 100ms

Or perhaps there is an example somewhere to know efficiency of a system from a patch ??

Could you show me how to get that ?
Or perhaps there is an example somewhere to know efficiency of a system from a patch ??


The uzi > counter method (shown below) is one way of timing how long it takes max to accomplish a set number of tasks.

Your question was about efficiency and this kind of timing is one way of measuring efficiency. Sometimes it can be very important when objects are constantly being polled or have to prosses large amounts of data.

I agree with Stefan about clarity being an excellent goal - however a check of speed can be very useful as in the following example which shows how occasionally the more complex solution can be much much more efficient....

The uzi > counter method (shown below) is one way of timing how long it takes max to accomplish a set number of tasks. 

Your question was about efficiency and this kind of timing is one way of measuring efficiency. Sometimes it can be very important when objects are constantly being polled or have to prosses large amounts of data. 

Ooops i wired up the Uzi's incorrectly - interestingly they give simmilar results either way and you might not expect that depending on your reading of the help file.

Thank you very much for this show, which is very helpfull and welcomed.

> I agree with Stefan about clarity being an excellent goal -

It'is difficult and probably displaced to provide and explain a full max patch in the forum.

I needed a clear answer about a "clear" problem... clear for me.

So I extracted a sample of my very complex patch and asked for help about what's the faster way for this fragment.

>... As you did not describe what the patch supposed to do, I can >only guess... I don't know what all the gates are for, so I >skip them...

My goal was not to show or share my work and explain what I did or will do about project etc... 

Just gave two process given a same result (they do ! no ??), and asked for opinion and help about efficiency.

For me it sounds like technical request goes to philosophy answers I didn't asked for.

But perhaps my experience with forum isn't very advanced.

Finally, sure I agree about clarity being an important goal. 

Thank you very much for this show, which is very helpfull and welcomed.
However :
> I agree with Stefan about clarity being an excellent goal - 

It'is difficult and probably displaced to provide and explain a full max patch in the forum. 

I needed a clear answer about a "clear" problem... clear for me.
So I extracted a sample of my very complex patch and asked for help about what's the faster way for this fragment.

>... As you did not describe what the patch supposed to   do, I can >only   guess... I don't know what all the gates are for, so   I >skip them...  

My goal was not to show or share my work and explain what I did or will do about project etc... 
Just gave two process given a same result (they do ! no ??), and asked for opinion and help about efficiency.

For me it sounds like technical request goes to philosophy answers I didn't asked for.
But perhaps my experience with forum isn't very advanced.

Finally, sure I agree about clarity being an important goal. 
I hope I did here.

the more efficient ?