This is indeed a very interesting result and I am able to reproduce
similar ratios for total running time.
However, I think the semilogx result is somewhat of a red herring. If
you change the order of the tests in your script, you'll notice that the
first "*log*" plot always takes the longest
> Hello,
> How did you get the cumtime listing? The output of the run doesn't produce a
> cumulative sum table as you showed here.
> Gökhan
No, it doesn't. The output of the run is four huge cProfile listings,
one for each plotting command tested. I manually searched the data for
long cumtime's
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Andrew Hawryluk wrote:
> I've observed a significant difference in the time required by different
> plotting functions. With a plot of 5000 random data points (all
> positive, non-zero), plt.semilogx takes 3.5 times as long as plt.plot.
> (Data for the case of savi
I've observed a significant difference in the time required by different
plotting functions. With a plot of 5000 random data points (all
positive, non-zero), plt.semilogx takes 3.5 times as long as plt.plot.
(Data for the case of saving to PDF, ratio changes to about 3.1 for PNG
on my machine.)
I
