Thanks for the clarification Rafael Cheers Lester
On 17 October 2016 at 09:43, Rafael Guerra <jrafaelbgue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The problem is not with csvRead, but with the need in the example we are > considering here to use the evstr function afterwards on large string data to > convert it to useable numeric values. > See time breakdown here below for another 50,000 line input data test: > > time1= 0.6552 // mfscanf > time2= 0.4680 // fscanfMat > time3a= 0.2028 // csvRead > time3= 34.3514 // csvRead + evstr > > Note that method#2 writes a temporary file to disk and so it will run much > faster on PC's with SSD drives. > > Regards, > Rafael > > -----Original Message----- > From: users [mailto:users-boun...@lists.scilab.org] On Behalf Of Lester > Anderson > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:26 AM > To: Users mailing list for Scilab <users@lists.scilab.org> > Subject: Re: [Scilab-users] using csvRead vs mfscanf and fscanfMat > > Hello, I ran the same code on my machine and actually got worse results: > > -->exec('Q:\Scilab_code\csvread_write.sce', -1) > > 1. 12. 2015. 1. 15. 0. 12. 1.1 - 2.2 > > 1. 12. 2015. 1. 15. 0. 12. 1.1 - 2.2 > > !01.12.2015 1 15 0.12 1.1 -2.2 ! > > time1= 1.21681 > time2= 2.19961 > time3= 51.7923 > > Windows 7 64-bit and 64 Gb Ram. (Scilab 5.5.2). Is this a bug if the > csvRead result is so different? > > Lester > >>> >>> The results for a 50,000-lines input ASCII file are: >>> time1= 0.686404 // mfscanf >>> time2= 0.499203 // fscanfMat >>> time3= 35.3966 // csvRead >> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
