Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> If your file is that small, I assume all of your numbers are single digits?
Most of the numbers are 0. The rest are single or double-digit positive integers.
> Also, without a header the current algorithm parses the file twice,
> once to get the size of the matrix, and again to actually read the data in.
Even so, cut the 90 seconds in half and you get 45 seconds.
That's *way* longer than I would expect.
Is this a known bug in Octave, or am I doing something wrong?
> I also
suspect all of this is completely unrelated to your actual problem...
I agree.
> ... it probably has to do with the peculiarities of Windows IO
> C++ libraries, which I've encountered before.
Is there a workaround for this?
> A matrix that size here in the free world loads in 4 seconds with a header
> and in 11 without a header.
Are you saying that you have a binary distro of Octave for 32-bit XP Pro
that loads a 2500x2500 12MB matrix in 4 seconds?