[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: octave benchmark test
From: |
Paul Kienzle |
Subject: |
Re: octave benchmark test |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:41:30 -0500 |
On Mar 8, 2004, at 12:58 PM, Michael Martin wrote:
Now some of the differences are quite likely due to algorithmic
differences. The difference in sorting is certainly likely
algorithmic, though given that my other numbers are slightly better
than the times in Paul Thomas' post, I have to wonder why my sort is
quite so much worse than his.
He is using David Bateman's sort from octave-forge
(http://octave.sf.net).
It is reported to have better performance on partially ordered lists,
but worse on random data compared to matlab.
Hmmm... I wonder if it is worthwhile to run through the data once to see
how ordered it is, then do quicksort or merge sort as needed?
Also, somebody with access to matlab might want to see if
"[y,idx]=sort(x)" is any slower than "y=sort(x)". Maybe they have
a fast stable sort algorithm that we don't know about.
Paul Kienzle
address@hidden
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------
- octave benchmark test, Paul Thomas, 2004/03/07
- Re: octave benchmark test, David Bateman, 2004/03/07
- Re: octave benchmark test, Michael Martin, 2004/03/08
- Re: octave benchmark test, David Bateman, 2004/03/09
- Re: octave benchmark test, Henry F. Mollet, 2004/03/09
- Re: octave benchmark test, Paul Kienzle, 2004/03/09
- Re: octave benchmark test, Paul Thomas, 2004/03/10
- octave derived classes - a couple of questions, Paul Thomas, 2004/03/12