Post by demonview in Lil Programming Questions

Viewing post in Lil Programming Questions

wods:"\n" split "r" drop words:read["/usr/share/dict/words"]
words:"\n" split words
still:select word:words@index wod:value
  where (wods in words)*(extract value like "*r*" from words)
  from wods
show[table random[still -10]]

this gets an answer in 13min, or 880ms without the 'wod in words' test. I've tried a few alternatives (words dict 1, readdeck of a grid, parsing and reading a json of a table) and nothing seems to cut that down. It seems like building large tables is slow. Maybe due to the allocator?

But, this was only for learning purposes and I gained a better appreciation of the query language from it.

Internet Janitor166 days ago(+2)

I made some localized improvements to C-Lil's implementation of the "in" operator. Using this dictionary file:

https://github.com/dwyl/english-words/blob/master/words_alpha.txt

and this version of the entire script:

words:extract where 5<count@value from "\n" split read["words_alpha.txt"]
on strip x do "" fuse "r" drop x end
still:select where wod in words from
 select word:value wod:strip@value
 where value like "*r*" from words
show[table random[still -10]]

The patch brings execution time on my laptop from about 12 minutes (oof) to about half a second.

itch.io

Viewing post in Lil Programming Questions