[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cellfun vs. parcellfun: speed
|
From: |
Juan Pablo Carbajal |
|
Subject: |
Re: cellfun vs. parcellfun: speed |
|
Date: |
Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:20:30 +0200 |
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Muhali <address@hidden> wrote:
> tic ; cellfun (@isempty, cell(1,100000)) ;
Same results here
octave:1> tic ; parcellfun (4, @isempty, cell(1,100000)) ; toc;
parcellfun: 100000/100000 jobs done
Elapsed time is 31.8499 seconds.
octave:2> tic ; parcellfun (4, @isempty, cell(1,100000),
"VerboseLevel", 0); tocElapsed time is 31.8916 seconds.
octave:3> tic ; cellfun (@isempty, cell(1,100000)) ; toc
Elapsed time is 0.221761 seconds.
I guess is due to the cost of creating and destroying threads? Does
the comparison is also bad when the job to be accomplish isn't as
trivial as @isempty?
--
M. Sc. Juan Pablo Carbajal
-----
PhD Student
University of Zürich
http://ailab.ifi.uzh.ch/carbajal/