# Exponential algoritm

Hallo experts.
In general:
How (if possible) do I translate an algoritm that uses two while-loops that grow exponential to an algoritm that grows in one dimension instead?
Example:

while not tableOne.EOF

while not tableTwo.EOF

tableTwo.MoveNext
wend

tableOne.MoveNext
wend

In this example I need to find every elements in tableTwo with a special status and sum them.
They are then related to tableOne an displayed as this
educationOne(5)
educationTwo(11)
educationThree(3)
. .. .
. .. .
and so on.

My only solution to this is to store the value (inside the pharanteses) in the database whenever any status changes inside the program and not use this algoritm.
But I'm just quoirios if it's possible to do some otherway without storing the value before I want it, and instead calculate it dynamically.

/Sven-Olof

###### Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Commented:
This is not exponential in growth.

Assuming table1 has N elements and table2 has M elements, this takes O(N*M) time to execute (big-O notation is used to express running times of algorithms. It ignores the exact value of the running time in favor of a simple expression of something approximating proportionality).

Exponential growth would be of the form O(2^N) or O(2^M) or some such.

Okay, now that I am done being pedantic, what about your question.

One suggestion for speeding up the algorithm would be to sort table2 by the special status. If you could group all the elements that should be summed with each element in table1 then you are able to speed up the algorithm to O(N+M) + the cost of the sort. A good sort would be, on average, O(M lg M) (lg is log base 2 but the base of the logarithm is unimportant in big-O).  So if lg M is much smaller than N, you would have a net win with sorting the second table. If necessary you could restore the original order (or work on a copy of table2).

Hope this helps, -bcl

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by