Coding Bill O'Reilly style: do it live. ;)

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;388901]Coding Bill O'Reilly style: do it live. ;)[/QUOTE]

yup! :smile:

[QUOTE=Jayder;387517]It would be nice if I could search for exponents with less than 0.2 GHzd spent on P-1[/QUOTE]Now [url=http://www.mersenne.ca/p1small.php?min_exp=0&max_exp=100000000&ignorenop1=1&show_by=ghd&ghd_effort_min=&ghd_effort_max=0.02]you can[/url].

The whole logic for picking out the worst-done ranges has also been improved (or changed, at least :smile:).

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;388912]Now [url=http://www.mersenne.ca/p1small.php?min_exp=0&max_exp=100000000&ignorenop1=1&show_by=ghd&ghd_effort_min=&ghd_effort_max=0.02]you can[/url].

The whole logic for picking out the worst-done ranges has also been improved (or changed, at least :smile:).[/QUOTE]
Much appreciated. You are a man among men. :smile:

[QUOTE=Jayder;388949]Much appreciated. You are a man among men. :smile:[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue][B]bisch a tirola bisch a mensch. [/B][/COLOR](Ernst would love that one.)

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;388912]Now [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/p1small.php?min_exp=0&max_exp=100000000&ignorenop1=1&show_by=ghd&ghd_effort_min=&ghd_effort_max=0.02"]you can[/URL].

The whole logic for picking out the worst-done ranges has also been improved (or changed, at least :smile:).[/QUOTE]
I like the concept a lot, but currently the list is mostly displaying 5M exponents which had P-1 done in 2009 (mostly with B1=55000, B2=907500, E=6) and in 2014 some of them have had done a tiny bit extra in the form of B1=67715 (no stage 2). I suspect the CPU credit is calculated only for the B1=67715 assignment.
For instance: [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=5047807&exp_hi=5047807&full=1[/URL]

Hmm, indeed. The recent changes to P-1 submission rules would have prevented that, but I'll have to try and take a wholesale look through the database and fix that.

I've identified 25348 exponents that fall into that category ("worse" P-1 with higher B1 replaced older "better" P-1 effort). I have updated the database on mersenne.ca and sent the list off to George, who can hopefully import it in the near future.

Exponents that were poorly P-1 factored
 

Sorry to bother you again about the mersenne.ca "Exponents that were poorly P-1 factored" page.
I'm either misunderstanding the search and/or filter criteria, or it's not ordering according to my criteria.

These are the criteria I put in:
Exponents between 30,000,000 and 70,000,000
<Filter by GHz-days Effort>
GHz-days P-1 effort is between <blank> and 1.00
Trial Factoring done to between and 65 and 75


and
- ignore P-1 never done

Found 500 exponents
Showing: <Pminus1><Status>

Somehow it always says exactly 500 exponents??? I haven't counted them, but that seems unlikely.
The list I get is with exponents between 30,000,000 and 70,000,000 , so that part is working. The "GHz-day P-1 effort done", is below 1.00 GHzdays, so that part is also working. But the list itself is confusing to me, it is not ordered by exponent, not by probability and not by "GHz-days P-1 effort done"??? Some also have high probabilities listed in the <Status> part??

Should I filter by probability, B2=B1, or something else to find exponents with poor P-1 effort?

I understand if you don't have time for my little endeavour.

P.S.
Probably just very lucky, but I'm now 2 out of 12 in a poorly done 58M range (found factors for M58,177,877 and M58,178,051 with P-1).

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;390885]Somehow it always says exactly 500 exponents???[/QUOTE]Query is limited to 500 exponents to keep the server happy. Your particular query would return 70732 results if not limited.

The results are returned in the order of greatest difference between expected P-1 effort and actual P-1 effort (in GHz-days, not probability). I've now split out the effects of additional TF and P-1 to make it more clear.

Short answer: the worst-done exponents are up top.

How about a number of total GHz-Days of work done since the beginning?