On Feb 27, 7:57 am, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 4:44 am, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > > So it seems that your timings indicate that Networkx's isomorphism > > checker is faster than the Sage one, even if we convert to c_graphs. Is > > that right? > > > That's embarrassing; I thought we had the "fastest isomorphism checker > > in the west". > > Well, I don't know if Graphs7 is that interesting of a problem set > size wise.
I would agree with Michael on this. I'll be examining graphs on < 10 vertices (and hopefully = 10 vertices) for a particular application that I have in mind. That's why I ran the particular test I ran. But it's quite possible that the C_Graph implementation works on moderately large and sparse graphs. I'll probably look into this over the weekend. Mark --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
