> I just ran each long test individually, and annotated them with how > much time they took (on my macbook pro). They are indeed all below > 30s, except for a big E8 test which takes 160s. I marked that one as
Oops, E8(1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) has degree 3875. That could be slow. I think I probably meant to branch E8(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1) which is the standard representation having degree 248. But I think it's OK to leave the test in but mark it not tested. > #not tested, and the file now runs under 150s which is good enough > (especially since I expect further serious improvements when we will > optimize the combinatorial free module code). Thanks! > Dan or Mike: please review trac_5794-long-time-nt.patch on #5794! One thing to watch out for: since the fundamental weights are cached, doing one computation with E8 would speed up all subsequent branching rules involving the same representations. This is not an issue with this patch, so it looks OK to me. Dan -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
