3 ms·

I'm wondering if you could sort the two inputs, add the indicies for the multiplications together, then take the largest of that. In your 0.1 example, 1000 get

I'm wondering if you could sort the two inputs, add the indicies for the multiplications together, then take the largest of that. In your 0.1 example, 1000 gets index 2, and 0.1 index 0, combines to 2. This will tie with the 1*8, but I think it would even out with larger vector lengths. Edit: I could be wrong but I think you can precompute the indices for the weights in advance without a prompt, then you won't need to perform those sorts at runtime.

kolinko 2y ago
That was one of the ideas I was also considering originally! Don't remember why is skipped it though - may have been because I tried the published one and it worked well enough during the first tries. As for indices for weight - not sure if I get what you mean, but the weights are sorted as a part of precomputations. Sorting is not done in runtime, because that would kill any efficiency - the moment you need to read all the weights, you've lost, because it's the memory reads, not computations that matter. If you can skip one memory read by doing 5-10 multiplications, it's a good tradeoff.