Hello Jesse ! Well, for a start it wouldn't be very fair to compare graph libraries if you do not use our graph methods and recode your own ! You seem to have rewritten your version of "strongly connected components" to test the libraries, and such low-level methods are in Sage written in Cython, so this kind of running times are only those you would get if you use Sage graphs but refuse to use any of the methods present in the library :-D
This being said, I just did some tests and if they are far from being as bad for Sage as yours are, I was quite disappointed myself. I was under the impression we were leaving NetworkX far behind, and it looks like we actually are behind in some cases, which will need to be fixed. Could I ask you to provide examples of codes which have different running times for NetworkX and Sage ? I guess you only use the add/remove edge/vertices methods in your code, which may be the explanation. When you are doing that you are actually calling Cython methods through Python functions, and spending more time calling methods than actually getting the job done.... Though to be honest I do not want to have to explain why Sage is slower, I would like to show that it is faster :-) Hence, if you can provide the code, we could begin to talk about the technical reasons. Good night ! Nathann -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
