Thanks, I found that it even gets much worse with a bigger finite field. For example if p = next_prime(1000000)
and I try the same experiment in GF(p^2), Magma is over 100 times faster! Victor On Jul 30, 6:07 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 30, 2009, at 2:50 PM, VictorMiller wrote: > > > I just did a test of SAGE versus Magma on the same computer. > > > I had a finite field GF(19991^2), and timed generating a random > > element in SAGE and in Magma. > > I found, much to my surprise, that Magma was a factor of 7 times > > faster. Does anyone know what > > method they use? > > No, but for this size field we're using a wrapper around pari, so I'm > sure there's lots of needless overhead converting and copying in our > implementation. > > - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
