help-octave
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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
-------------------------------------------------------------



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]