On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Would you expect numexpr without MKL to give a significant boost?
It can, depending on the use case:
-- It can remove a lot of uneccessary temporary creation.
-- IIUC, it works on blocks of data at a time, and thus can keep
things in cache m
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Warren Weckesser wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Phillip Feldman <
> phillip.m.feld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> numpy.unique behaves as I would expect for small inputs like the
>> following:
>>
>> In [12]: x= [0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 3]
>>
>> In [13]:
Would you expect numexpr without MKL to give a significant boost?
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Warren Weckesser
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Phillip Feldman
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> numpy.unique behaves as I would expect for small inputs like the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> In [12]: x= [0, 0, 1, 0
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Warren Weckesser
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Phillip Feldman
> wrote:
>>
>> numpy.unique behaves as I would expect for small inputs like the
>> following:
>>
>> In [12]: x= [0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 3]
>>
>> In [13]: unique(x, return_index=True)
On 11/07/2012 03:30 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>>> David Cournapeau wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help
David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help
me.
I got an idea that instead of buildi
David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help
me.
I got an idea that instead of buildi
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>>> I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
>>>
>>> I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my
>>
David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
>>
>> I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my
>> custom modules against these libraries, I could simply use
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
>
> I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my custom
> modules against these libraries, I could simply use:
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/opt/amdlibm-3
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my custom
modules against these libraries, I could simply use:
LD_PRELOAD=/opt/amdlibm-3.0.2/lib/dynamic/libamdlibm.so:/opt/acml5.2.0/gfortran64/lib/l
12 matches
Mail list logo
