this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)

NotAwfulTech

6 readers
1 users here now

a community for posting cool tech news you don’t want to sneer at

non-awfulness of tech is not required or else we wouldn’t have any posts

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
15
The official awful.systems Advent of Code 2023 thread (awful.systems)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by gerikson@awful.systems to c/notawfultech@awful.systems
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rules: no spoilers.

The other rules are made up as we go along.

Share code by link to a forge, home page, pastebin (Eric Wastl has one here) or code section in a comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 3 points 11 months ago

A nice workaround to jq single threadedness, since this is maq reduce and safe to parallelize. 17m10s -> 20s !!!

Spoiler link to commit.https://github.com/zogwarg/advent-of-code/commit/fef153411fe0bfe0e7d5f2d07da80bcaa18c952c

Not really spoilery details: Revolves around spawing mutiple jq instances and filtering the inputs bassed on a modulo of number of instances:

  # Option to run in parallel using xargs
  # Eg: ( seq 0 9 | \
  #        xargs -P 10 -n 1 ./2023/jq/12-b.jq input.txt --argjson s 10 --argjson i \
  #      ) | jq -s add
  # Execution time 17m10s -> 20s
  if $ARGS.named.s and $ARGS.named.i then #
    [inputs] | to_entries[] | select(.key % $ARGS.named.s == $ARGS.named.i) | .value / " "
  else
    inputs / " "
  end

I use JQ at work, and never really needed this, i guess this trick is nice to have under the belt just in case.