Hi, Am Samstag, den 04.09.2010, 16:08 +0200 schrieb Thomas Weber: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Martin Helm wrote: > > Am Samstag, 4. September 2010, 13:22:36 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek: > > > > > Hmm, the Octave-related information is sadly outdated :( Probably > > > still based on Octave 3.0.x. I believe 3.2.x would also perform better > > > in the benchmarks. > > > > > In addition I have some severe doubts about the reliability of the tests, I > > look through the table and found for a 2000x2000 matrix multiply > > octave 18.664 > > R 0.070 > > It's not just Octave, R beats every other product by a factor of at > least 100. > > > Comparing the performance of a matrix multiply in R and octave does not > > give > > me any hint that R outperforms (even the old 3.0 version of octave) by a > > factor 266 (?!?) but gives comparable speed. > > Looks like the testers did not recognize that a*b is not the same in octave > > and R but that in R one has to write %*% for matrix multiplication and they > > compare component wise multiplication in R with full matrix multiplication > > in > > octave. > > Not very promising from my point of view. > > I have the same feeling. LU decomposition is faster by a factor of at > least 500(!) in R than in any other product. > > Sorry, I don't believe this. > > Thomas >
Furthermore, they state that there's no online documentation for octave. Simply googling for "octave documentation" returns the octave manual and the octave forge documentation as the first two search results. Laurent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
