sorry. dont know how that happened... fixed the typo and also added the
python file to gerenate the input data
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:27:23 PM UTC+1, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote:
>
> Ok, just a typo, should be boxl2
>
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:26:44 PM UTC+1, Kristoffer Carlsson
boxl3 is not defined
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:19:09 PM UTC+1, Andre Bieler wrote:
>
> Someone posted a benchmark for Numba and Fortran
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/431tsm/numba_applied_to_high_intensity_computations_a/
>
> As a Friday afternoon project I ported the
Ok, just a typo, should be boxl2
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:26:44 PM UTC+1, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote:
>
> boxl3 is not defined
>
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:19:09 PM UTC+1, Andre Bieler wrote:
>>
>> Someone posted a benchmark for Numba and Fortran
>>
>>
>>
Transposing coord (i.e. let the column index correspond to x,y,z and the
row index to the different particles) helps a little bit (but not so much).
Julia uses column major order, Python is different I believe. How big is
the difference with Numba?
Op vrijdag 29 januari 2016 21:26:07 UTC+1
A significant part of the time is spent in computing the norms (r_sq =
rx*rx + ry*ry + rz*rz) and the absolute value (abs(rz) > boxl2), I don't
know if there's more efficient ways to compute those.
