At 09:42 AM 9/7/2007, wang frank wrote:
>Are there any way to speed it up?
How about psyco?
Dick Moores
XP, Python 2.5.1, editor is Ulipad
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:53:48 +, wang frank wrote:
>>From: "Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: python-list@python.org
>>Subject: Re: Speed of Python
>>Date: 7 Sep 2007 23:17:55 GMT
>>
>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:5
On Sep 7, 12:42 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While comparing the speed of octave and matlab, I decided to do a similar
> test for python and matlab. The result shows that python is slower than
> matlab by a factor of 5. It is not bad since octave is about 30 time slower
> t
"wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|z=log(j);
This matlab code is faster in part than your Python equivalent:
| > > z=math.log(m)
because of the repeated lookup of log in the math module.
So, replace
| > > import math
with
I am just trying to compare the speed with matlab. The arrange is used for
another test, that is why it shows up in the mail.
Thanks
Frank
From: "Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Speed of Python
Date: 7 Sep 200
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:59:26 +, wang frank wrote:
> I also have tried to use numpy to speed it up. However, surprisingly, it is
> slower than the pure python code.
>
> Here is the code:
> import numpy
> arange=numpy.arange
> nlog=numpy.log
> def bench6(n):
> for i in xrange(n):
>
From: "Kurt Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Speed of Python
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:49:05 -0500
On 9/7/07, wang frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Here is the matlab code:
> function
ajaksu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Speed of Python
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:27:45 -
On Sep 7, 2:37 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not familiar with python, so I just simply try to reproduce the
same
> code in p
On Sep 7, 2:37 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not familiar with python, so I just simply try to reproduce the same
> code in python.
Seems almost correct, but from what I guess of MatLab, George's
suggestions make it a bit more fair.
> If you think that my python script is not
On Sep 7, 12:42 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is my conclusion correct that Python is slower than matlab?
There are ways to speed up code execution, but to see substantial
improvement you'll need to use numpy and rework the code to operate
on vectors/matrices rather than building
On Sep 7, 12:42 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is my conclusion correct that Python is slower than matlab? Are there any
> way to speed it up?
Yes, use Numpy for any non trivial number-crunching task:
http://numpy.scipy.org/.
Even if you don't, you can speed up the original functi
On Sep 7, 1:37 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Here is the matlab code:
> function [z]=bench1(n)
> for i=1:n,
> for j=1:1000,
> z=log(j);
> z1=log(j+1);
> z2=log(j+2);
> z3=log(j+3);
> z4=log(j+4);
> z5=log(j+5);
> z6=l
ct: Re: Speed of Python
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:19:02 -
On Sep 7, 12:42 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the bench1.py:
> import math
> def bench1(n):
> for i in range(n):
> for j in range(1000):
>
On Sep 7, 12:42 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the bench1.py:
> import math
> def bench1(n):
> for i in range(n):
> for j in range(1000):
> m=j+1
> z=math.log(m)
> z1=math.log(m+1)
On Sep 7, 6:42 pm, "wang frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matlab (aka MATrix LABoratory) has been designed with numeric
computations in mind (every object being natively a n-dim
array). If you wish to develop that kind of applications in
Python, consider using the numerical array structure provi
Chao wrote:
> I did some search, in previous discussion, people has compared
> python/numpy vs matlab,
> but it is actually comparison between numpy(which is implemented in c)
> vs matlab.
Yes, matlab is operating on whole arrays at a time,
like numpy. So it's not surprising that they have
compar
Chao wrote:
> While trying this another question comes up,
> psyco seems to be able to optimize built-in functions & user's code, if
> I call a function from an external library, it seems doesn't help.
> A simple thing is I placed a = numpy.sin(a) in the loop rather than a =
> a+1, in this case,
>
Thank you guys for your interest,
I tried two things 1) put code into a function 2) use psyco.
1) by putting them into a function, there is a significant improvement,
around 30%
the running time will be around 0.3sec
2) by using psyco, it really does a great job, the running time is
around 0.045
Chao, you can also try Psyco, applied on functions, and when necessary
using its metaclass too.
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Chao wrote:
> My Bad, the time used by python is 0.46~0.49 sec,
> I tried xrange, but it doesn't make things better.
Actually it does: it doesn't waste time and space to create a big list.
--
Roberto Bonvallet
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Chao a écrit :
> My Bad, the time used by python is 0.46~0.49 sec,
> I tried xrange, but it doesn't make things better.
>
> import time
> tic = time.time()
> a = 1.0
>
> array = range(1000)
>
> for i in array:
> for j in array:
> a = a + 0.1
>
> toc = time.time()
> print toc-tic,' ha
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 18:07, Chao wrote:
> I've been trying to develop some numerical codes with python, however
> got disappointed.
>
> A very simple test,
>
> a = 1.0
>
> for i in range(1000):
> for j in range(1000):
>a = a+1
>
> unfortunately, it took 4.5 seconds to fini
My Bad, the time used by python is 0.46~0.49 sec,
I tried xrange, but it doesn't make things better.
import time
tic = time.time()
a = 1.0
array = range(1000)
for i in array:
for j in array:
a = a + 0.1
toc = time.time()
print toc-tic,' has elapsed'
used by matlab is 0.012sec
tic
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 04:07:20PM -0800, Chao wrote:
> I've been trying to develop some numerical codes with python, however
> got disappointed.
>
> A very simple test,
>
> a = 1.0
>
> for i in range(1000):
> for j in range(1000):
>a = a+1
>
> unfortunately, it took 4.5 second
At Wednesday 13/12/2006 21:07, Chao wrote:
I've been trying to develop some numerical codes with python, however
got disappointed.
A very simple test,
a = 1.0
for i in range(1000):
for j in range(1000):
a = a+1
unfortunately, it took 4.5 seconds to finish(my machines is fine.
On 13 Dec 2006 16:07:20 -0800, Chao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been trying to develop some numerical codes with python, however
got disappointed.
A very simple test,
a = 1.0
for i in range(1000):
for j in range(1000):
a = a+1
unfortunately, it took 4.5 seconds to finish(
26 matches
Mail list logo
