On 28 Oct 2014 07:32, "Jerome Kieffer" <jerome.kief...@esrf.fr> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:28:37 +0000 > Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > It's definitely attractive. Some potential issues that might need dealing > > with, based on a quick skim: > > In my tests, numpy's FFTPACK isn't that bad considering > * (virtually) no extra overhead for installation > * (virtually) no plan creation time > * not that slower for each transformation
Well, this is what makes FFTS intriguing :-). It's BSD licensed, so we could distribute it by default like we do fftpack, it uses cache-oblivious algorithms so it has no planning step, and even without planning it benchmarks as faster than FFTW's most expensive planning mode (in the cases that FFTS supports, i.e. power-of-two transforms). The paper has lots of benchmark graphs, including measurements of setup time: http://anthonix.com/ffts/preprints/tsp2013.pdf -n
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
