On Nov 14, 9:05 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could you add something to this email about performance comparisons with > Magma? > It's one thing to say "Sage is slow compared to my custom optimized C > code" (no surprise), and another to say "Sage is 1000 times slower > than some easy-to-write interpreter code in Magma" (ouch, and is the > case here, right?). > I'm guessing the latter. I actually have done exactly this type of calculation (computing a Gauss-Manin connection) in a couple of examples using Magma and it seemed to work pretty well. I didn't try Sage's rational function field per se, since at the time we didn't wrap Singular to do Groebner bases over such a field (do we even do it now?), but Singular was hopelessly bad at doing Groebner bases over Q (t) (as in, what Magma did in a fraction of a second wouldn't terminate in two hours under Singular). I'm guessing that among other improvements, Magma's method (based on F4) has less intermediate coefficient explosion.
Kiran P.S. Sebastian: I'll be interested in this code eventually, for possible applications to computing zeta functions of varieties over finite fields (Lauder's "deformation method" in p-adic cohomology). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
