similar to: newbie question : select distinct in model

It seems like the form helpers, such as "link_to" and "check_box" really slows down rendering when you have hundreds of rows. Has anyone else noticed this?? Is there a way to go around it apart from typing the raw html? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I want to be able to code my rails apps either on my Desktop mac or my Powerbook using textmate. I want to build a Debian server that runs lighttpd, rails and mysql. Would I use samba on the server and access the files that way through TextMate or is there something else that folks use? and should I use subversion and if so, how would I do that in the scanario I''m describing.

I have a page that renders a series of about 20 checkboxes on the left hand side with content on the right. These checkboxes are created from a DB and that part is all working well. What I want to do is have a user click on a checkbox [genres] and have the content on the right be filtered based on the checkbox ticked. If a user clicks on more than one checkbox than only those stories

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > I presume you mean, instead of assigning function arguments distinct > ranks > > (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Reassociate_8cpp_source.html#l00282), > we > > should

Hi there, Is there a neat and easy way to implement pagination with letters rather than numbers eg : A B C D ... Z Rob

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I presume you mean, instead of assigning function arguments distinct ranks > (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Reassociate_8cpp_source.html#l00282), we > should group function arguments in favor of existing pairings. Existing = pairings reassociate already chose before *not* existing

On 7/12/07, Dan Gohman <djg at cray.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:06:04AM -0500, David Greene wrote: > > On Thursday 12 July 2007 07:23, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > > > > The single instruction constraints can, at their most flexible, constrain > > > > any set of possible pairings of loads from memory and stores to memory > > > >

Hi Daniel, I presume you mean, instead of assigning function arguments distinct ranks ( http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Reassociate_8cpp_source.html#l00282), we should group function arguments in favor of existing pairings. You are not suggesting discarding the entire ranking system, right? I'll look into how that works on my benchmarks. AFAIK, we encountered some cases that seem beyond

Hi Nick, > The attribute you're looking for, "delete if result is unused" doesn't > exist in LLVM. I've considered it in the past, but the truth is that > most of the time I want to eliminate dead malloc's, they *do* have a > use: the matching free. At some point I expect I'm going to teach LLVM > to remove dead malloc+free / new+delete /

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:08:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:33:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:08:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:33:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >

I am looking for hints on how to estimate ratings for competitors in an ongoing pairwise competition using R... my particular area of interest being the game of Go, but the idea of identifying ratings (on a continuous scale) rather than relative rankings seems easily generalized to other competitions so I thought someone might be studying something related already. I presume the rating of a

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:06:04AM -0500, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 12 July 2007 07:23, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > > The single instruction constraints can, at their most flexible, constrain > > > any set of possible pairings of loads from memory and stores to memory > > > > I'm not sure about this, but can we get issues due to "special"

On Thursday 12 July 2007 13:08, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > Right. For example, the Cray X1 has a much richer set of memory > > > ordering instructions than anything on the commodity micros: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3agjjn > > > > > > The memory ordering intrinsics in the current llvm proposal can't take > > > advantage

On Thursday 12 July 2007 07:23, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > The single instruction constraints can, at their most flexible, constrain > > any set of possible pairings of loads from memory and stores to memory > > I'm not sure about this, but can we get issues due to "special" kinds of > data transfers (such as vector stuff, DMA, ...?). Memcpy implementations >

Hi All, We recently upgraded a number of applications from LLVM 3.5.2 (old JIT) to LLVM 3.7.1 (MCJit). We made the minimum changes needed for the switch (no changes to the IR generated or the IR optimizations applied). The resulting code pass all tests (8000+). However the runtime performance dropped significantly: 30% to 40% for all applications. The applications I am talking about

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> The attribute you're looking for, "delete if result is unused" doesn't >> exist in LLVM. I've considered it in the past, but the truth is that >> most of the time I want to eliminate dead malloc's, they *do* have a >> use: the matching free. At some point I expect I'm going to teach LLVM >> to

... Being an R newbie, I can only think of extracting distinct x values with unique, looping over them, extracting matching rows from the original data frame, applying table, and recording the size of table's output alongside the x value being checked. Is there a more elegant way? Thank you. -- View this message in context:

Greetings, I have a question that I'd like to get input on. I have a classic toxicology study where I artificially fertilized and exposed embryos to a chemical and counted defects. In addition, I kept track of male-female pairs that I used to artificially fertilize and generate embryos with. I need to use logistic regression to model the response, but also check that the genetics of the

Hi Nick, >>> The attribute you're looking for, "delete if result is unused" doesn't >>> exist in LLVM. I've considered it in the past, but the truth is that >>> most of the time I want to eliminate dead malloc's, they *do* have a >>> use: the matching free. At some point I expect I'm going to teach LLVM >>> to remove dead