The is true, and that is also what I wanted to do. When using @elapsed, should I then be worried about garbage collection affecting my times?
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 5:57:57 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > I generally find that using a comprehension around @elapsed is pretty > terse and clear – it also makes it easy to compose with reducers like min, > max, median, and quantile, which is convenient for analysis. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Patrick Kofod Mogensen < > patrick....@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> It is indeed, thank you. I was also told that @timeit might do something >> along the lines of what I am doing. >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 5:07:24 PM UTC+1, Andreas Noack wrote: >>> >>> @elapsed is what you are looking for >>> >>> 2015-03-11 7:43 GMT-04:00 Patrick Kofod Mogensen <patrick....@gmail.com> >>> : >>> >>>> I am testing the run times of two different algorithms, solving the >>>> same problem. I know there is the @time macro, but I cannot seem to wrap >>>> my >>>> head around how I should save the printed times. Any clever way of doing >>>> this? I thought I would be able to >>>> >>>> [@time algo(input) for i = 1:500], >>>> >>>> but this saves the return form algo. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Patrick >>>> >>> >>> >
