first, you might be interested by this:
L = zip(Vars,p.lm().exponents()[0].sparse_iter())
its faster but still not enough...
then you might look at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7587,
apply it ( review it ;) )
and do
L = [(Vars[i],e) for i,e in enumerate(p.lm().exponents
(as_ETuples=
Hi!
On 2 Dez., 17:47, Simon King wrote:
[...]
> IIRC, I tried various other methods (without strings), but they were
> all slower. However, I don't remember any concrete examples.
> So, it would help me if you commented
> onhttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7580
> what I should try inste
Hi William!
On 2 Dez., 17:26, William Stein wrote:
...
> I'm not surprised. Looking through the code, its use of strings and
> regular expressions is fairly delicate -- I wouldn't use regular
> expressions at all to implement the same functionality (and more). But
> I'm not rewriting anything (t
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
> Concerning the use of InfinitePolynomialRing in Sage, it was discussed
> in another thread and I since wrote a patch (#7561) to change it. As
> mentionned, I need nothing of what this class has been built for, and
> n
Hello everybody
Concerning the use of InfinitePolynomialRing in Sage, it was discussed
in another thread and I since wrote a patch (#7561) to change it. As
mentionned, I need nothing of what this class has been built for, and
now that it is replaced with plain "var", it is a thousand times
f
Hi!
On Dec 2, 6:40 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, William Stein wrote:
> >> WTF? Regular expressions?!?!
There are regular expressions in InfinitePolynomialRing, but (at least
after applying my patch) I don't
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> WTF? Regular expressions?!?!
>
> The following messages are probably relevant for the fast conversion
> between singular polynomial rings:
Thanks. There's also regular expression stuf
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, William Stein wrote:
> WTF? Regular expressions?!?!
The following messages are probably relevant for the fast conversion
between singular polynomial rings:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Michael Brickenstein
wrote:
> In Singular the same thing is essentially
WTF? Regular expressions?!?!
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Here is a first ticket, with patch:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7578
>
> It reduces the computation time of the original example of this thread
> to the time that is needed to convert the un
Hi!
Here is a first ticket, with patch:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7578
It reduces the computation time of the original example of this thread
to the time that is needed to convert the underlying finite
polynomials. Hence, as long as the conversion does not improve, it
seems to m
On 1 Dez., 21:57, Nick Alexander wrote:
[...]
> I'm certain you are aware, but there is an art to optimizing regular
> expressions. It might be that a tuned regex is necessary, rather than
> avoiding a regex altogether.
Can you suggest some manual that can teach me about optimizing regular
e
Hi!
I just found that part of the problem is coercion -- or actually
conversion -- for classical polynomial rings:
sage: R1 = PolynomialRing(QQ,'x',10001)
sage: R2 = PolynomialRing(QQ,'x',10002)
sage: x1 = R1('x1')
sage: %prun a = R2(x1)
160026 function calls in 5.073 CPU sec
> Nevertheless, the regular expression business isn't good either. I'll
> see what I can do -- recent sage-devel/sage-support threads indicated
> some improvements.
I'm certain you are aware, but there is an art to optimizing regular
expressions. It might be that a tuned regex is necessary, rat
Hi Martin!
On 1 Dez., 20:30, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
[...]
> Sure, but up to 50 seconds for a simple coercion seems way way too much even
> in that case.
Agreed. Let's try to find out what happens here.
My first thought was that it is due to the huge polynomial rings. But
the following seems to
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Martin!
>
> On 1 Dez., 19:02, Martin Albrecht
>
> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > the following code is really, really really (REALLY!) slow:
>
> Well, the default implementation creates a polynomial ring with 1
> variables in the background
Hi Robert!
On 1 Dez., 19:18, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
> Ouch, that is pretty bad. Looks like something changed in 4.2, it's
> doing a huge amount of regular expressions stuff...
It does a lot of regular expressions in the background. I did not see
a way to do it better. However, the code d
Hi Martin!
On 1 Dez., 19:02, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> the following code is really, really really (REALLY!) slow:
Well, the default implementation creates a polynomial ring with 1
variables in the background when you say x[1], and another ring
with 10001 variables if you th
17 matches
Mail list logo
