Re: Slowness in function 'open'

[Mark B.]

Hi,


Muthiah Annamalai-3 wrote:
> 
> Update your Octave version if possible. I think you should do the Octave
> developers a favor, by using a newer version of Octave 2.9.x or later. 
> The comparison with Matlab, doesnt make much difference now that we are on
> a
> much improved version.
> 

As far as I know 2.9.12 is the latest version:

http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/

By the way, the times I got with Matlab are just for reference. I have no
intention of asking the people of the Octave project to match Matlab's
capabilities or performance. My intention is to get my job done with Octave
in the most efficient way

The times by the older version of Octave are also by reference


Muthiah Annamalai-3 wrote:
> 
> I would also suggest you do a offline conversion program in Octave, that
> can
> load the text
> files and save it to binary format using,
> save -binary cCaMeLCaPsMwItHuNgArIaNoTaTiOn
> 
> and then load binary files from Octave, in your 'main' script.
> 
> 

Octave is only one part of a batch process (no offline steps). One option
could be to add an intermediate step to convert the text file to binary
after it is output by the C++ program. However, I can figure that workaround
out by myself. Here, I want to ask for a possible solution without having to
resort to that additional step. 

Many thanks for your suggestions, though. 


Muthiah Annamalai-3 wrote:
> 
> For me on the oldest Octave version I could find access to, 2.1.50
> a 1.4MB file loads as text in 0.399s; whereas the same file loaded as
> binary
> 
> takes just 0.015370s.
> 
> 

The size of my file is 30Mb 


Muthiah Annamalai-3 wrote:
> 
> What do you say?
> -Muthu
> 

I said thanks, but I have to restate my questions (with enhancements):

- Is there a faster way to load this type of files? Maybe less compatible
with Matlab, more native of Octave, but more efficient (this is something
other programs do: leave the unoptimized version of a function for legacy
purposes but provide a new that is more efficient)

- Is this a known issue? i.e., is everybody else having the same performance
with the same type of files of comparable sizes?

Thanks


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Slowness-in-function-%27open%27-tf3960902.html#a11241028
Sent from the Octave - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.