My guess, and it is only a guess since I do not use CLISP, is the following:
The allocation of floating-point number memory is too small, and you are using it up, so you are triggering garbage collections. One possible fix: allocate more float memory in CLISP. See if that changes timing. Another fix, more general: as soon as you have no way of accessing a result in Maxima, kill it, as well as the label it uses. Note that in the normal course of events, every computation in Maxima is given a label, which means that it is never garbage -- it can be accessed by uttering the label. So every result is saved. (Intermediate computations can generally be GC'd). Removing such results means more memory for the next calculation. Another fix (along lines previously mentioned). If you are doing floating point calculations, either compile them in lisp (for which you would need to have a lisp with a real compiler, not CLISP), or use a different language, perhaps compiled python, or if absolute speed is not important (it could be as slow as molasses; the problem is it gets slower each time...) then use python. Of course speed, absolute speed, is generally an issue because it is almost the only thing one can measure, so using a compiled function for plotting or repeated evaluation as in quadrature, is a strategy common to Macsyma and Mathematica. Another suggestion is to do the definite integrations by quadrature, which would probably get you a boost in speed, and mean that the whole problem could be done by something like matlab. On Dec 6, 5:54 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 5:51 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:35 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So someone who knows what we do in Maxima when we call the above > > > functions should see if running the computation on vanilla Maxima also > > > shows the same problem. I case vanilla Maxima has this is trying a > > > Maxima with is not build with clisp could potentially narrow down if > > > (d) is the culprit. I would do it myself, but since (a) performance of > > > calculus is a lost cause anyway when using Maxima and (b) I have more > > > pressing things to do I was hoping that somebody else would poke > > > around. > > > I will at least email the Maxima users list and let you know if there > > is a reply. > > Before doing that you should make sure that the problem is truly on > the Maxima side. It seems like a bad idea to report an issue and then > it turns out to be a Sage bug. I consider that chance remote, but I > would expect the same from anybody reporting bugs in Sage. > > Cheers, > > Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
