Although it is easy to get the current step or increment number (variables KSTEP and KINC), I can't find an easy way to know the iteration number when inside the subroutine UMAT.
I know the following "if clause" will tell me if I'm in the first iteration of the first increment of the first step:
IF((KINC.EQ.1).AND.(SUM(STRAN+DSTRAN).EQ.0.0D0)) THEN
And I also know that I can get the iteration number writing to external files. However, is it possible to do it just inside the UMAT subroutine?
There is never really a reason to need to know the iteration number in a UMAT. If you think you need to know it, this is often a sign that you there is a better way to achieve what you want to know.
You can use a common block to track how often you enter a umat, and also which iteration you are on. But I really recommend against this. There is no good reason to know the iteration number. Unless your algorithm is perfect it will cause you more problems than it's worth.
Also in your code to check for the first increment - that will not tell you when you are in a real iteration, it will happen in PRE most likely.
Related
I'm using SPSS and hoping to create a new variable that houses the sum of a group of previous variables. The catch is: if any of the variables are recorded as "9" then I need to leave them out.
Is there a command that makes this relatively easy? I had thought of doing DO IF, but it seems like that would get extremely tedious with 6 variables as I'd have to code each possible instance unless I'm mistaken. If there is an easier way that I just haven't been able to find, I would be forever grateful!
This is what I'm thinking would need to be done, but could absolutely be wrong:
DO IF (var1<=4 AND var2<=4 AND var3<=4 AND var4<=4 AND var5<=4 AND var6<=4).
COMPUTE newvar=SUM(var1,var2,var3,var4,var5,var6).
ELSE IF (var1<=4 AND var2<=4 AND var3<=4 AND var4<=4 AND var5<=4 AND var6=9).
COMPUTE newvar=SUM(var1,var2,var3,var4,var5).
/* And so on and so forth for each possible variation of the sum.
It's not that this didn't work, I'm just checking to see if there's an easier way before committing the time to it.
Here are some ways to make it shorter:
missing values var1 to var6(9).
compute newvar=sum(var1 to var6).
Now if you don't want to just mark value 9 as missing, but to get rid of it all together:
recode var1 to var6(9=sysmis).
compute newvar=sum(var1 to var6).
If you don't want to change anything in the data, you can go:
missing values var1 to var6(9).
compute newvar=sum(var1 to var6).
missing values var1 to var6().
If all those sulutions are problematic for you, here's the classicle loop solution:
compute newvar=0.
do repeat vr=var1 to var6.
if vr<>9 newvar=newvar+vr.
end repeat.
exe.
Here's another solution just for fun:
count nines=var1 to var6(9).
compute newvar=sum(var1 to var6) - nines*9.
Im trying to make a game on Scratch that will use a feature to generate a special code, and when that code is input into a certain area it will load the stats that were there when the code was generated. I've run into a problem however, I don't know how to make it and I couldn't find a clear cut answer for how to make it.
I would prefer that the solution be:
Able to save information for as long as needed (from 1 second to however long until it's input again.)
Doesn't take too many blocks to make, so that the project won't take forever to load it.
Of course i'm willing to take any solution in order to get my game up and running, those are just preferences.
You can put all of the programs in a custom block with "Run without screen refresh" on so that the program runs instantly.
If you save the stats using variables, you could combine those variable values into one string divided by /s. i.e. join([highscore]) (join("/") (join([kills]) (/))
NOTE: Don't add any "/" in your stats, you can probably guess why.
Now "bear" (pun) with me, this is going to take a while to read
Then you need the variables:
[read] for reading the inputted code
[input] for storing the numbers
Then you could make another function that reads the code like so: letter ([read]) of (code) and stores that information to the [input] variable like this: set [input] to (letter ([read]) of (code)). Then change [read] by (1) so the function can read the next character of the code. Once it letter ([read]) of (code) equals "/", this tells the program to set [*stat variable*] to (input) (in our example, this would be [highscore] since it was the first variable we saved) and set [input] to (0), and repeat again until all of the stats variables are filled (In this case, it repeats 2 times because we saved two variables: [highscore] and [kills]).
This is the least amount of code that it takes. Jumbling it up takes more code. I will later edit this answer with a screenshot showcasing whatever I just said before, hopefully clearing up the mess of words above.
The technique you mentioned is used in many scratch games but there is two option for you when making the save/load system. You can either do it the simpler way which makes the code SUPER long(not joking). The other way is most scratchers use, encoding the data into a string as short as possible so it's easy to transfer.
If you want to do the second way, you can have a look at griffpatch's video on the mario platformer remake where he used a encode system to save levels.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRtlrBnX-dY The tips is to encode your data (maybe score/items name/progress) into numbers and letters for example converting repeated letters to a shorter string which the game can still decode and read without errors
If you are worried it took too long to load, I am pretty sure it won't be a problem unless you really save a big load of data. The common compress method used by everyone works pretty well. If you want more data stored you may have to think of some other method. There is not an actual way to do that as different data have different unique methods for things working the best. Good luck.
I have a MVC application which returns 2 types of Json responses from 2 controller methods; AnyRemindersExist() and GetAllUserReminders(). The first returns a boolean, 2nd returns an array, both wrapped as Json.
I have a JavaScript timer checking for calendar reminders against a user. It makes the first call (AnyRemindersExist) to check whether reminders exist and whether the client should then make the 2nd call.
For example, if the result of the Json response is false from the Any() query, it doesn't then make the 2nd controller action which makes a LINQ select call. If there are reminders that exist, it then goes further and then requests them (making use of the LINQ SELECT).
Imagine a system ramped up where 100-1000s users use the system and on the client, every 30-60 seconds a request comes in to load in the reminders. Does this Any() call help in anyway in reducing load on the server?
If you're always going to get the actual values afterwards, then no - it would make more sense to have fewer requests, and just always give the full results. I very much doubt that returning no results is slower than returning an indication that there are no results.
EDIT: tvanfosson's latest comment (at the time of this writing) is worth promoting:
You can really only tell by measuring and I'd only resort to it IFF the performance of the select only option didn't meet the requirements.
That's the most important thing about performance: the value of a guess is much less than the value of test data.
I would say that it depends on how the underlying queries are translated. If the any call is translated into an indexed lookup when the select (perhaps due to a join to get related data) must do some sort of table scan, then it will save some work in the case when there are no reminders to be found. It will cause a little extra work when there are reminders. It might be useful if the majority of the calls don't result in any results.
In the general case, though, I would just select the data and only try to optimize IF that turns out to not be fast enough. The conditions under which it will actually save effort on the server are pretty narrow and might only apply if you hand-craft the SQL rather than depend on your ORM.
Any only checks to see if there is at least one item in the Collection that is being returned. Versus using something like Count > 0 which counts the total amount of items in the collection then yes this is more optimal.
If your AnyRemindersExist method is operating on a similar principle then not calling a second call to the server would reduce your load.
So you are asking if not doing work the application doesn't need to do would reduce the workload on the server?
Of course. How would this answer every be "yes, doing extra work for no reason won't effect the server load".
It ultimately depends on how much faster the Any check is compared to getting the results and how often it will be false.
If the Any call takes near as long as the select then it pretty
much never makes sense.
If the Any call is much faster than the select but 90% of the
time it's true, then it probably isn't worth it (best case you
get 10% improvement, worst case it's actually more work).
If the Any call is much faster than the select and 90% of the
time it's false, then it probably makes sense to check if there
are any before actually getting results.
So the answer is it depends on your specific scenario. Ultimately you're going to need to measure both the relative performance (on different typical loads, maybe some queries are more intensive than others) as well as the frequency that there are no results to return.
Actually it should almost never make sense to check Any in this case.
If Any returns false then you don't need to grab the results.
However this means it would have returned no results anyway, so
unless your Any check is significantly faster than a select
returning 0 results, there's no added benefit here.
On the other hand, if Any returns true, then you'll need to get the
results anyway, so in this case Any is purely additional work done.
I am searching for ideas/examples on how to store path patterns from users - with the goal of analysing their behaviours and optimizing on "most used path" when we can detect them somehow.
Eg. which action do they do after what, so that we later on can check to see if certain actions are done over and over again - therefore developing a shortcut or assembling some of the actions into a combined multiaction.
My first guess would be some sort of "simple log", perhaps stored in some SQL-manner, where we can keep each action as an index and then just record everything.
Problem is that the path/action might be dynamically changed - even while logging - so we need to be able to take care of this fact too, when looking for patterns later.
Would you log everthing "bigtime" first and then POST-process every bit of details after some time or do you have great experience with other tactics?
My worry is that this is going to take up space, BIG TIME while logging 1000 users each day for a month or more.
Hope this makes sense and I am curious to see if anyone can provide sample code, pseudocode or perhaps links to something usefull.
Our tools will be C#, SQL-database, XML and .NET 3.5 - clients could also get .NET 4.0 if needed.
Patterns examples as we expect them
...
User #1001: A-B-A-A-A-B-C-E-F-G-H-A-A-A-C-B-A
User #1002: B-A-A-B-C-E-F
User #1003: F-B-B-A-E-C-A-A-A
User #1002: C-E-F
...
etc. no real way to know what they do next nor how many they will use, how often they will do it.
A secondary goal, if possible, if we later on add a new "action" called G (just sample to illustrate, there will be hundreds of actions) how could we detect these new behaviours influence on the previous patterns.
To explain it better, my thought here would be some way to detect "patterns within patterns", sort of like how compressions work, so that "repeative patterns" are spottet. We dont know how long these patterns might be, nor how often they might come. How do we break this down into "small bits and pieces" - whats the best approach you think?
I am not sure what you mean by path, but, if you gave every action in a path a unique symbol, you could reduce the problem to longest common substring or subsequence.
Or have a map of paths to the number of times that action occurred. Every time a certain path happens, increment the count for that path. Then sort to find the most common.
Pseudo idea/implementation so far
Log ever users action into a list/series of actions, bulk kinda style (textfiles/SQL - what ever, just store the whole thing for post-processing)
start counting every "1 action", "2 actions", "3 actions" up til a certain amount (lets say 30 levels)
sort them all, by giving values of importants to some of the actions (might be those producing end results)
A usefull result perhaps?
If we count all [A], [A-A], [A-B], [A-C], [A-A-A], [A-A-B] etc. its going to make a LONG and fine list of which actions are used in row frequently, and thats in the right direction, because if some of these results gets too high, we might need a shorter path. Problem is then, whats too few actions to be optimized and whats the longest needed actionlist to search for? My guess is that we need to do this counting first, then examine the numbers.
Problem is that this would be part of an analyzing tool we are developing and we dont have data until implementation, so we dont know what to look for before its actually done. hmm... wondering if there really IS an answer to this one.
I've been writing some scripts for a game, the scripts are written in Lua. One of the requirements the game has is that the Update method in your lua script (which is called every frame) may take no longer than about 2-3 milliseconds to run, if it does the game just hangs.
I solved this problem with coroutines, all I have to do is call Multitasking.RunTask(SomeFunction) and then the task runs as a coroutine, I then have to scatter Multitasking.Yield() throughout my code, which checks how long the task has been running for, and if it's over 2 ms it pauses the task and resumes it next frame. This is ok, except that I have to scatter Multitasking.Yield() everywhere throughout my code, and it's a real mess.
Ideally, my code would automatically yield when it's been running too long. So, Is it possible to take a Lua function as an argument, and then execute it line by line (maybe interpreting Lua inside Lua, which I know is possible, but I doubt it's possible if all you have is a function pointer)? In this way I could automatically check the runtime and yield if necessary between every single line.
EDIT:: To be clear, I'm modding a game, that means I only have access to Lua. No C++ tricks allowed.
check lua_sethook in the Debug Interface.
I haven't actually tried this solution myself yet, so I don't know for sure how well it will work.
debug.sethook(coroutine.yield,"",10000);
I picked the number arbitrarily; it will have to be tweaked until it's roughly the time limit you need. Keep in mind that time spent in C functions etc will not increase the instruction count value, so a loop will reach this limit far faster than calls to long-running C functions. It may be viable to set a far lower value and instead provide a function that sees how much os.clock() or similar has increased.