On May 6, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>> Probably not so cool, since it would be like 50 machines vs one >> machine. > > Sure, but the Mathematica blog post is scalablity: "In Mathematica, a > core principle is that everything should be scalable. So in my job of > creating algorithms for Mathematica I have to make sure that > everything I produce is scalable." But Pari's algorithm is already parallelisable (just farm off a bunch of euler factors to each thread). The only advantage my algorithm has in "scalability" is that each thread needs only O(1) memory, instead of O(n log n) which would be required for Pari's algorithm. So if memory were tight, but you had lots of processors, and your n was really big, then perhaps this algorithm would win. But when I think about the actual numbers involved, the economics just don't work out. Even 80 processors is a pathetically small number, given a 50x serial slowdown in the algorithm. You would need thousands of cpus to even consider this approach. And even then, it would only be worthwhile if each cpu had very limited memory. david --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
