A little surprised :) Thought I'd share and ask a NOT rhetorical question. - page 8
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yes, it is a good idea - we will definitely discuss it. But I can't guarantee its implementation - there are many pitfalls.
Yes, it's a good idea - we'll definitely discuss it. But I can't guarantee its implementation - there are many pitfalls.
Maybe it's better not to, when people already have code written for 0?
P.S. I have noticed that the advantage of putting the calculation in the intdicator code is that, for example, 2 indicators loaded in charts fully use 2 cores - the load is 100%. This is useful - the CPU is not idle.
Maybe it's better not to when people already have code written for 0?
P.S. I've noticed that the advantage of putting the calculation in the intdicator code is that, for example, 2 indicators loaded on the charts fully use 2 cores - the load is 100%. This is useful - the CPU is not idle.
1) So the code is not written correctly
2) Similarly - optimise indicator, what else is 100% CPU load ???
1) So the code is not written correctly.
2) Similarly - optimise the indicator, what else is the CPU load 100% ???
Everything is right - it works as intended. Everything is optimised. I have a 2 core CPU. If I place one indicator (Expert Advisor with indicator handle) on a chart, then task manager shows about 60% load, and if I add 2nd indicator it shows 100% load. I am surprised myself - does multicore work (for several indicators) - cool!
Everything is correct - it works as intended. Everything is optimized. I have a 2x core CPU. If I place one indicator (EA with indicator handle) on a chart, the task manager shows about 60% load, and if I add the 2nd indicator it shows 100% load. I am surprised myself - does multicore work (for several indicators) - cool!
Not exactly, paralleling of calculations goes on different symbols. For example, all indicators for one symbol are calculated in one thread, and indicators for another symbol in another thread. Therefore, the processor is used more efficiently and the slow indicators for one symbol do not affect the calculation of indicators for other symbols.
Indicators placed on the same symbol are calculated sequentially in a separate thread of the particular symbol.
As the terminal itself is multithreaded and makes good use of multi-core, the CPU load is efficient.
The final result (as intended) does not at all mean algorithmically correct implementation.
However, the end result implies bottom-up compatibility. My point is that there is a rationale in your suggestion, and you can talk about a redundant (corrected) function and leave the old one in place. Use as you choose.
Not really, the paralleling of calculations goes on different symbols.
You are correct to add - on different characters. Thanks for the information.
Read the article Parallel Calculation in MetaTrader 5 by Regular Tools, it explains that for each symbol the indicators run in one separate thread.