#11115: Rewrite cached_method in Cython
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: jason
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.7
Component: misc | Keywords: category cython cache
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Author: Simon King
Merged: | Dependencies:
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment(by SimonKing):
Apparently the different tendency of the test comes from choosing a
different field size. If I return to `GF(101)`, I get
sage-4.7.alpha5 without patches:
{{{
sage: get_memory_usage()
839.96484375
sage: K = GF(101)
sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^6)]
CPU times: user 2.75 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 2.76 s
Wall time: 2.76 s
sage: get_memory_usage()
849.00390625
sage: 849.00390625-839.96484375
9.03906250000000
}}}
With the patches:
{{{
sage: get_memory_usage()
841.9921875
sage: K = GF(101)
sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^6)]
CPU times: user 2.66 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 2.66 s
Wall time: 2.66 s
sage: get_memory_usage()
851.03125
sage: 851.03125-841.9921875
9.03906250000000
}}}
So, the memory consumption in that scenario does not increase at all, and
there is a little speedup.
I wonder why that is different with `GF(next_prime(10^6))`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11115#comment:31>
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 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-trac?hl=en.
