mark mcclure wrote: > On Feb 27, 7:57 am, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 27, 4:44 am, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: >>> So it seems that your timings indicate that Networkx's isomorphism >>> checker is faster than the Sage one, even if we convert to c_graphs. Is >>> that right? >>> That's embarrassing; I thought we had the "fastest isomorphism checker >>> in the west". >> Well, I don't know if Graphs7 is that interesting of a problem set >> size wise. > > I would agree with Michael on this. I'll be examining graphs on < 10 > vertices (and hopefully = 10 vertices) for a particular application > that > I have in mind. That's why I ran the particular test I ran. But it's > quite > possible that the C_Graph implementation works on moderately large > and sparse graphs. I'll probably look into this over the weekend.
Sure, I hope the c_graph code is better for bigger graphs. I was just thinking that for smaller graphs, maybe we could use a faster method... Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
