Re: Changesets: Re: Parallel access to data created with Octave

[Jarno Rajahalme]

On May 26, 2010, at 10:54 PM, ext Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Btw. I also noticed that cellfun() itself has some overhead. My own 
>>>> "celltest.cc", which copied only the relevant parts of cellfun() was 
>>>> faster.
>>> 
>>> Hmm. Maybe you omitted something that cellfun needs to do? If you
>>> don't think so, please show me the code. Or if you can figure out how
>>> cellfun can be further sped up (preferably without invasive changes),
>>> that would be even better :)
>>> 
>> 
>> I just cut&pasted the cellfun itself, but only upto the point where the arg0 
>> is a string recognized by cellfun (e.g., "numel") and without any of the 
>> preceding C++ helper code.
>> 
> 
> That still sounds like it should be equally fast, so I'd like to see it.
> 

Please find the attached, stripped down cellfun2.cc. Testing with the script 
you sent (ticcellfun etc.), but with N = 1e3, cellfun2 is about 10-20% faster 
than cellfun.

  Jarno

cellfun2.cc
Description: Binary data