Hi,
I get
sage: f = piecewise([((0,1),1)])
sage: time f(0.1)
CPU times: user 135 ms, sys: 4.23 ms, total: 140 ms
Wall time: 146 ms
1
sage: time f(0.2)
CPU times: user 133 ms, sys: 3.56 ms, total: 136 ms
Wall time: 137 ms
1
This is painfully slow. Is this normal?
--
You received this message be
As I already told Marc, one should use "pytest" rather than "sage -t" - for
obvious reasons: Sage has very own testing system,
and one should not expect it to be able to test non-Sage code.
On Monday, April 29, 2024 at 1:08:01 PM UTC+1 Marc Culler wrote:
> I don't know what the expectations are
For another data point, on an ubuntu laptop:
sage: time [f(0.1*i) for i in range(1,10)]
CPU times: user 136 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 136 ms
Wall time: 99.1 ms
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
sage: time f(0.1)
CPU times: user 13.6 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 13.6 ms
Wall time: 13.5 ms
1
sage: version()
'SageMat
Working on *why* it might be so slow a bit:
%prun for i in range(100r): f(0.1)
798103 function calls (791903 primitive calls) in 1.327 seconds
Ordered by: internal time
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
80000.5560.0000.6280.0
Hi Sage developers,
Since I posted my request to urgently vote on the modularization PRs, the
big revert (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796) was merged into
Sage 10.4.beta4.
The modularization PRs have now been re-created (thanks, Julian, for your
help with this).
*I'm now asking y
Previous posts in the series:
https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/OeN8o14s6Jc/m/ChnpijP3AgAJ,
https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/xBzaINHWwUQ/m/Tq17YRqOAAAJ
As we all know, SageMath makes use of hundreds of *"upstream" projects:
third-party, separately maintained packages* written eit
On Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 12:37:44 AM UTC+9 Nils Bruin wrote:
Working on *why* it might be so slow a bit:
%prun for i in range(100r): f(0.1)
798103 function calls (791903 primitive calls) in 1.327 seconds
Impressive. Thanks.
so, most stuff is happening in maxima and in _subs_, a
On Wednesday 1 May 2024 at 16:45:36 UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
I wonder if they, maintainers of maxima, would regard this as a bug...
I'm pretty sure the piecewise functions are NOT borrowed from maxima. It
probably gets called because there are some inequalities concerning the
symbolic ring.
