Re: [computer-go] Computer Go hardware

[Peter Seibel <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Frank de Groot" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> > So if you have a program that needs to lookup 1000 patterns in a
>> > 10,000-pattern database or a program that needs to lookup 1000
>> > patterns in a 100,000,000-pattern database, this takes *exactly*
>> > the same time.
>>
>> Only if you know, a priori, the exact address of the 1,000 patterns
>> you want to look up.
>
> Or if you know it with a few slots accuracy..
>
>> And if you know that you only need a 1,000 pattern database, no?
>
> No, why? If you find that 10 million patterns perform much better
> than 1000 patterns, why would you need only 1000 if you would know
> the location of the pattern in your database??

My point was that the only way it takes "*exactly* the same time" to
find 1,000 patterns in RAM regardless of the total number of patterns
is if you already know which 1,000 you want (and where they are in
RAM). And if you already know which ones you want then what do you
need the other 9,999,000 patters for?

But that was a bit knee-jerk: you could need a different 1,000
patterns at different times. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by
"lookup a pattern"? I.e. what are the keys and what are the values in
the "pattern database".

-Peter

-- 
Peter Seibel                                      peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

         Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/