I'm not surprised. These fields should be written to use NTL as a backend directly (and probably using the same ideas as polynomial template, and there's enough finite fields that they should probably be put into their own directory while all the re-factoring is going on...) but no one's found the time or need to do it yet.
- Robert On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:19 PM, VictorMiller wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
