Oakromulo

Another surprise over here... I've tried the formula node with c-like array manipulation, with constant dimensions. This time the primitives have been 71% faster than formula node. The O(n) overhead theory seems unlikely...

Slight modification, same results:

Yeah... there must be some constant overhead when calling the formula nodes. There's also the option to try array manipulation inside the node, therefore removing the for loop outside. I'll give it a try it later.

After two years "leeching" content every now and then from the Lava community I think it's time to contribute a little bit.

Right now, I'm working on a project that involves lots of data mining operations through a neurofuzzy controller to predict future values from some inputs. For this reason, the code needs to be as optimized as possible. With that idea in mind I've tried to implement the same controller using both a Formula Node structure and Standard 1D Array Operators inside an inlined SubVI.

Well... the results have been impressive for me. I've thought the SubVI with the Formula Node would perform a little bit better than the other one with standard array operators. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The inlined SubVI was consistently around 26% faster.

Inlined Std SubVI

Formula Node SubVI

evalSugenoFnode.vi

evalSugenoInline.vi

perfComp.vi

PerfCompProject.zip