Re: octave benchmark test

[Paul Thomas]

I agree entirely, where details  (ie. less factor of 1.5-2 either way) 
are concerned.  However, you and others gained factors of 5 or more that 
have made the difference that I find impressive.  Whether deranged or 
not.......

Paul T

David Bateman wrote:

> Daprès Paul Thomas <address@hidden> (le 07/03/2004):
>  
>
> > Sorting of 2,000,000 random values__________________ (sec): 1.696      
> > (0.9027)
> >    
>
> This slowup with octave is also a choice. The sort code in octave-forge
> uses the mergesort code from python, while matlab uses a quicksort
> algorithm. The benchmark above is reversed if partially ordered lists
> are used, as for instance often happen in interpolation codes. So octaves
> loss in the above benchmark shows more about the choices of the person
> writing the benchmark than the octaves relative performance. Benchmarks
> are all figments of someones deranged imagination...
>
> D.
>
>  




-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------