Re: octave benchmark test

[Dmitri A. Sergatskov]

Paul Kienzle wrote:

> It is reported to have better performance on partially ordered lists,
> but worse on random data compared to matlab.

Well, may be I misunderstood what does "partially ordered means", but here is
what I got.
(Matlab 6.5):

>> x1=rand(3000);                 % random
>> x2=[1:3000];                   % ordered
>> x3=repmat(x2,3000,1);  %
>> x=x3+2*x1;                     % partially ordered ?



>> tic ; sort(x1) ; toc

elapsed_time =

    1.4351

>> tic ; sort(x3) ; toc

elapsed_time =

    0.8567

>> tic ; sort(x) ; toc

elapsed_time =

    1.4285

>> x=x3+1.1*x1;
>>  tic ; sort(x) ; toc

elapsed_time =

    1.4355

>>  tic ; [y,idx]=sort(x) ; toc

elapsed_time =

    2.2073

>>  tic ; [y,idx]=sort(x) ; toc   % So we will not need to allocate y and idx

elapsed_time =

    2.0607


(Octave 2.1.56):

octave:1> x1=rand(3000);
octave:2> x2=[1:3000];
octave:3> x3=repmat(x2,3000,1);
octave:4> x=x3+2*x1;
octave:5> tic ; sort(x) ; toc
ans = 2.1968
octave:6> tic ; sort(x1) ; toc
ans = 1.9328
octave:7> tic ; sort(x3) ; toc
ans = 0.58155
octave:8> tic ; [y,idx]= sort(x) ; toc
ans = 3.5003
octave:9> tic ; [y,idx]= sort(x) ; toc
ans = 3.4638


> Paul Kienzle
> address@hidden

Dmitri.



-------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------