OK, that makes much more sense. On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Only 20% compared to base-10 strings? It seems like there should be >> more gain than that. Or was it doing something different before? > > pari --> sage hasn't been base-10 strings for years. > Gonzalo wrote optimized code for this in Feb 2006. > > The other direction, i.e., sage --> pari, was (is!) slow base-10 > strings. I'm glad it won't be soon. > > William > >> >> - Robert >> >> On Oct 10, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Craig Citro wrote: >> >>> I have a patch to fix that just about ready to go out the door, >>> actually. If you want, I could send it to you and see if it makes >>> your life easier. The pari->sage speedup is only about 20% (which >>> I'd like to improve), but the sage->pari is a 5-6X speedup, and >>> gets better with the length of the integers. >>> >>> -cc >>> >>> >>> On 10/10/07, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Beautiful, thanks! No my unbelievably trivial problem can be solved >>> extremely fast. There appears to be something else which is >>> inexplicably eating up time now--maybe coercion between PARI and >>> SAGE >>> integers in other places... >>> >>> JV >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >> > > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
