Difference between revisions of "Thread:User talk:Skilgannon/KDTree/Regarding PrioQueue/reply (2)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reply to Regarding PrioQueue) |
m (correction) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Regarding the stack of tree nodes, perhaps you had it sorting in the wrong direction or something? Based on my tests, when setting it up so it always visits the nearest unvisited node next, it pretty reliably decreased the number of points visisted. The overall performance gain was smaller than the reduction in points visited (due to the extra distance calculations), but it did did pay off slightly for me in any case. | + | Regarding the stack of tree nodes, perhaps you had it sorting in the wrong direction or something? Based on my tests, when setting it up so it always visits the nearest unvisited node next, it pretty reliably decreased the number of points visisted. The overall performance gain was smaller than the reduction in points visited (<s>due to the extra distance calculations</s> Edit: not due to extra distance calculations, turns out I was calculating bounding box distances for unvisited paths before I implemented the stack of tree nodes), but it did did pay off slightly for me in any case. |
Latest revision as of 22:20, 17 July 2013
Regarding the stack of tree nodes, perhaps you had it sorting in the wrong direction or something? Based on my tests, when setting it up so it always visits the nearest unvisited node next, it pretty reliably decreased the number of points visisted. The overall performance gain was smaller than the reduction in points visited (due to the extra distance calculations Edit: not due to extra distance calculations, turns out I was calculating bounding box distances for unvisited paths before I implemented the stack of tree nodes), but it did did pay off slightly for me in any case.
