Hi Robert, Hooray!
On 18 Jan., 00:20, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > Both, but primarily the latter. It's a microbenchmark, but loop like > > a = Integer(10) > b = QQ(20) > s = RDF(30) > for x in range(10**n): > s += a*b*x > > should give us an upper bound on how expensive any changes could be. I did the following on my laptop: sage: def test(n): ....: a = Integer(10) ....: b = QQ(20) ....: s = RDF(30) ....: for x in xrange(10**n): ....: s += a*b*x And then, sage-5.0.prealpha0+#11780 yields sage: %time test(6) CPU times: user 7.25 s, sys: 0.04 s, total: 7.29 s Wall time: 7.31 s whereas adding #715 yields sage: %time test(6) CPU times: user 7.29 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 7.31 s Wall time: 7.31 s So, no difference whatsoever! > (And yes, people write code like this...) Maybe a similar test with a > tower of small finite fields. I don't understand what that would look like. I'll update the trac ticket with your example. Thank you, 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
