On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 10:54 -0800, Alex J Best wrote: > I agree the situation with zn_poly is a mess, but I think it would be good > to do some actual benchmarks to check if the NTL code is faster or > comparable to the zn_poly version, I don't see any data in the ticket but > you do say "The one thing it does is done better by NTL" so maybe you > already did some?
It would be hard to benchmark without knowing where zn_poly fails. The only function in sagelib that uses zn_poly is in hypellfrob.cpp, and it has a comment at the top: Note that the zn_poly version occasionally fails; this happens more frequently for smaller p, but is extremely rare for larger p. This wrapper detects this and falls back on the zz_p/ZZ_p versions, which should never fail. That's what I meant by "NTL does it better," and any benchmark would have to take into consideration the attempts that failed and were actually made with NTL instead. Certainly those cases are slower than if we'd just used NTL the first time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0929e53551f68047fc8a614212b241a34d5f11f6.camel%40orlitzky.com.
