|
From: | Javier Fernández |
Subject: | Re: the competition's expm vs ours |
Date: | Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:58:04 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) |
address@hidden wrote:
Today's Topics: 1. Re: the competition's expm vs ours ( Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008/11/12 David Bateman <address@hidden>:Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:I just ran into a "benchmark" in a blog somewhere that suggests that our expm is slower than Matlab's.Jaroslav can probably do a better job at that than I can as he worked on this part of the code... However, can you put us to the benchmark?It wasn't anything impressive. Just ran expm a couple of times on rand(300), and we lost by a factor of 8 or so. I can't find it again. :-/
Googlin for "expm benchmark octave matlab" gives this thread as second hit (first hit is of course this thread :-)
http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=19&threadid=41499&STARTPAGE=2#336461 http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=19&threadid=41499&STARTPAGE=2#337667But I think the second post (octave timing) is on a different computer than the first one (Matlab & Mathematica).
I have recently seen benchmarks against old octave versions (2.9.10), even for software released few months ago
http://cermics.enpc.fr/~jpc/nsp-tiddly/mine.html (click on "Benchmark")I think Jaroslav's indexing improvements are included in 3.0.3 but not in previous versions, aren't they?
-javier
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |