On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Harald Schilly<harald.schi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 23, 12:24 am, Simon King <simon.k...@nuigalway.ie> wrote: >> >> So, over QQ, MMA is slightly faster, but over finite fields Sage >> clearly wins? That is already something worth pointing out. >> > > I'm not a mma expert, but since they have no system in place to define > the ring it's noteworthy to stick the finger where it hurts ... Here > is another very simple one: multiply and add random boolean matrices: > > sage: m1 = random_matrix(GF(2), 1000, 1000) > sage: m2 = random_matrix(GF(2), 1000, 1000) > sage: %timeit 'm1 * m2' > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 31.2 ns per loop > sage: %timeit 'm1 + m2' > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 31.2 ns per loop
This is wrong; %timeit 'm1 + m2' measures the time evaluating the string 'm1 + m2' (i.e. basically the dummy overhead in the Python interpreter). I don't think Sage is quite *that* fast :-) On sage.math I get: sage: m1 = random_matrix(GF(2), 1000, 1000) sage: m2 = random_matrix(GF(2), 1000, 1000) sage: %timeit m1 * m2 100 loops, best of 3: 2.53 ms per loop sage: %timeit m1 + m2 10000 loops, best of 3: 141 µs per loop Fredrik --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
