#19585: Improve efficiency of calling GAP functions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jaanos | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.10
Component: interfaces | Resolution:
Keywords: GAP functions | Merged in:
interface | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Janoš Vidali | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | f59926575333e34976901f92c1f070e0c168a0b9
u/tscrim/improve_calling_gap_function-19585| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by dimpase):
Replying to [comment:15 nbruin]:
> For solving your original problem: if communication is a bottleneck,
then using libGap will probably give you the best improvements. That said,
improvements in expect interfaces are of course welcome, so thanks!
interestingly, libGAP is quite slow here.
{{{
sage: %time S = P.conjugacy_classes_subgroups()
CPU times: user 143 ms, sys: 24 ms, total: 167 ms
Wall time: 181 ms
sage: P = libgap.SuzukiGroup(libgap.IsPermGroup,8)
sage: %time S=P.ConjugacyClassesSubgroups()
CPU times: user 220 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 220 ms
Wall time: 220 ms
}}}
I guess there handling of `P` and `S` on the Sage side is not optimal...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19585#comment:16>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
