Hi there, On 12/11/2009 08:12 AM, Wolodja Wentland wrote: > I really like the API of networkx but have no problem in switching to > another one (right now) .... I have the impression that graph-tool might > be faster and have a smaller memory footprint than networkx, but am > unsure about that.
I'm the author of graph-tool, so my opinion may be biased. :-) Nevertheless, I do think that graph-tool will be faster and have a smaller memory footprint than networkx, since the graph data structures and most algorithms are written in C++, using the Boost Graph Library, whereas networkx is mostly pure python. I have made this library due to my own requirements of being able to work with large graphs. The only other library I can think of which may be comparable in performance is igraph, which is implemented in C. But I think graph-tool's interface is a bit more polished (my opinion only). Moreover, since graph-tool uses template metaprograming to obtain specialized versions of algorithms, it may be that it is even faster than igraph, but I have at the moment no benchmarks to back this up. Cheers, Tiago
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
