On Jun 9, 10:05 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi David,
> This is on an 8-core 2GHz xeon running debian. (Tom Boothby's machine.)
>
> In a clean build of sage-3.0.2:
>
> sage: time x = bernoulli(40000)
> CPU times: user 4.19 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 4.20 s
> Wall time: 4.20 s
> sage: time x = bernoulli(40000)
> CPU times: user 3.18 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 3.18 s
> Wall time: 3.19 s
> sage: time x = bernoulli(40000)
> CPU times: user 3.18 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 3.19 s
> Wall time: 3.19 s
> sage: time x = bernoulli(40000)
> CPU times: user 3.18 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 3.19 s
> Wall time: 3.19 s
>
> Then I tried building my own PARI/GP. I first built gmp 4.2.1 with
> jason martin's core 2 patches. Then I built pari/gp. I get:
>
> ? #
> timer = 1 (on)
> ? x = bernfrac(40000);
> time = 1,972 ms.
> ? x = bernfrac(40000);
> time = 1,317 ms.
> ? x = bernfrac(40000);
> time = 1,316 ms.
> ? x = bernfrac(40000);
> time = 1,316 ms.
>
> Why is the sage version three times slower than the gp version?
No clue. Can you actually compare the gp binary from Sage directly
with the timings from your self builid binary to eliminate the problem
that libPari is involved here? If the gp binary in Sage is slower by a
factor of three compared to the one you build this sounds like a bug
to me. But it could also be conversation overhead for example.
> david
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
