[sage-devel] Re: SAGE performance in cygwin

2007-02-06 Thread Alec Mihailovs
William, It appears that you answered to that question before I asked it. Thank you very much! That was very useful. With this version of m SAGE produces (odd) magic squares faster than Octave, octave:1> t=cputime();a=magic(201);cputime()-t ans = 0.32800 octave:2> t=cputime();a=magic(1001);cpu

[sage-devel] Re: SAGE performance in cygwin

2007-02-06 Thread Alec Mihailovs
From: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you're using the SAGE command prompt, it's important to either > set the constants outside of the loop (they all get wrapped in > Integer( ... ), which slows things down), or put an r after them > to make them raw literals.(We intend to automatic

[sage-devel] Re: SAGE performance in cygwin

2007-02-06 Thread William Stein
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:14:24 -0700, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is not a cygwin or python problem as far as I can tell. [...] > To emphasize, these results were obtained using the *same* python > binary for the ipython and SAGE trials. > > This begs the question: what is SA

[sage-devel] Re: SAGE performance in cygwin

2007-02-06 Thread William Stein
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:58:31 -0700, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SAGE's version of Python in cygwin seem to be very slow. Are you starting "SAGE's version of Python" with "sage -python" and typing there, are are you running that same function from the SAGE command prompt? Please t

[sage-devel] Re: SAGE performance in cygwin

2007-02-06 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Feb 6, 2007, at 19:58 , Alec Mihailovs wrote: > > SAGE's version of Python in cygwin seem to be very slow. This is not a cygwin or python problem as far as I can tell. I did the same experiment with SAGE and with the version of python from the sage 2.0 build. I got very similar results: