From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-05 15:34:36
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Michael Fawcett <michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]>
> Same test, but I resized the image to 1280 x 1280 (it was at 128 x
> 128). There were 1,016,906 nodes generated during the search.
> at_goal() - 19.05272 seconds
> exception - 18.85408 seconds
So on this platform/configuration, w/ ~15K nodes, at_goal() was ~7.5%
faster, and w/ ~1M nodes, exception was a little over 1% faster. It would
be interesting to plot some curves to see where the turning point for this
I still wonder if the exception method would *significantly* outperform
at_goal() for larger graphs. For me, 1% isn't all that compelling, unless
it offers something else, such as design simplicity (or decreasing the
WTF?!? (astonishment) factor).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk