Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Why is bagof so slow?
Keywords: bagof, setof
Message-ID: <3110@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 30 May 90 17:48:58 GMT
References: <2556@randvax.UUCP> <3086@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <2559@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 14

In article <2559@randvax.UUCP>, narain@randvax.UUCP (Sanjai Narain) writes:
> I thank Alain Callebaut and Richard O'Keefe for quite useful answers to my
> query about bagof.  [...]
> It turns out that in important cases the use of setof (or bagof) can
> be eliminated. This has yielded a speedup of 20 for our current model.

I think it would be a good idea for you to describe your original problem,
how you coded it using bagof/3, and how you transformed it to eliminate
the calls to bagof/3.  There are few of us who would not welcome such
speedups...

-- 
"A 7th class of programs, correct in every way, is believed to exist by a
few computer scientists.  However, no example could be found to include here."