Weekly Challenges
Solve the challenge, share your solution and summit the ranks of our Community!Also available in | Français | Português | Español | 日本語
IDEAS WANTED
Want to get involved? We're always looking for ideas and content for Weekly Challenges.
SUBMIT YOUR IDEA
My solution is similar to some of the others. See inside the spoiler for some performance analysis.
I noticed that only a small percentage of the Pet and Owner records joined, so I wondered which would be better for run time: 1) using a Join Multiple to join all of the datasets together at once, or 2) filtering the rewards data first, to reduce the number of records in that join (since we only care about records where the reward is over the threshold). Option 2 is implemented above.
I made the datasets larger by generating additional Animal Ids (so each dataset had about 2.6 M records, with approximately the same join rate).
With 20 runs each, option 1 averaged about 25% faster than option 2 (but not significantly).
Option 1: mean=8.9 s, stdev=1.34
Option 2: mean=12.2 s, stdev=1.51
I went with a Trade Area tool having a 500 mile radius followed by a Spatial Match, which seems to be unique to this thread. Is there a particular reason to go with the Distance Tool instead? A limitation that I wasn't considering?
