renge/CSE505
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

doc

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Renge 2024-03-09 23:27:50 +08:00
parent 794f9907c8
commit 01c0b9a6bf
1 changed files with 11 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
Assignment2/README.md
View File

@ -44,7 +44,9 @@ I didn't find a way to calculate runtime in swi-prolog. But it is clearly to see
| 5 | 38 | time limit exceeded |
| 10 | 48 | time limit exceeded |
| 15 | 29 | time limit exceeded |
| 20 | 46 | time limit exceeded |
| 20 | 46 | time limit exceeded |
It is great to have two different mode. Though the approximate result is not as good as the exact one. But it is way faster and uses way less resource. We can switch between different mode at different case.
### AMPL
| size | ans | time |
@ -52,8 +54,9 @@ I didn't find a way to calculate runtime in swi-prolog. But it is clearly to see
| 5 | 38 | very fast |
| 10 | 48 | very fast |
| 15 | 29 | very fast |
| 20 | 46 | very fast |
| 20 | 46 | very fast |
Very fast.
## Part B
### clingo
@ -111,4 +114,9 @@ One important factor of the runtime is the max number of cut to check. If we set
| 20 | 17 | very fast |
| 25 | 21 | very fast |
| 30 | 25 | very fast |
| 100000 | 80393 | very fast |
| 100000 | 80393 | very fast |
Very fast.
## Conclusion
AMPL is the fastest implementation in part 1 and 3, much faster than the others. clingo is the clearest and the easiest way to write it but it is not that fastest one. Each language has its own pros and cons so it is hard to create a single language with all the pros but no cons.