Hi Nicolas, On 29 Apr., 23:06, "Nicolas M. Thiery" <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote: > Can you give it a shot with GF(2), so as to hit one of the smallest > possible sage Element?
Sage-4.7.alpha5 with patches: sage: K = GF(2) sage: get_memory_usage() 842.01171875 sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] CPU times: user 25.85 s, sys: 0.05 s, total: 25.91 s Wall time: 25.91 s sage: get_memory_usage() 920.51171875 sage: 920.51171875 - 842.01171875 78.5000000000000 Sage-4.7.alpha5 without patches: sage: K = GF(2) sage: get_memory_usage() 839.96875 sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] CPU times: user 24.71 s, sys: 0.04 s, total: 24.75 s Wall time: 24.75 s sage: get_memory_usage() 918.4609375 sage: 918.4609375 - 839.96875 78.4921875000000 So, the additional memory usage seems affordable to me. But I guess I should try to find out why the element creation became slower for GF(2), while it became faster for GF(101), and again slower for GF(next_prime(10^6)) (see example on the ticket). Cheers, Simon -- 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
