Hi everybody,
John's suggestion worked out quite well! Thank you everybody for being
patient and helping me out there!
Regards,
Kannappan.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Oh yes, forgot about that one!
>
>
> On Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:14:40 PM UTC, John H Palmieri
Oh yes, forgot about that one!
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:14:40 PM UTC, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> According to the docstring for timeit,
>
>This method prints the timing information and does not return
>anything, except if the option "seconds=True" was passed, in which
>case th
According to the docstring for timeit,
This method prints the timing information and does not return
anything, except if the option "seconds=True" was passed, in which
case the wall time in seconds is returned.
So timeit('...', seconds=True) might do what you want.
On Saturday, Decembe
You can do this to get a return value, though its not particularly
user-friendly. It would be nice if timeit would return a ElapsedTime class
(or so) that can easily be converted/compared. In any case:
import sage.misc.sage_timeit_class
s = sage.misc.sage_timeit.sage_timeit('10^10', globals())
s
Hi Volker,
Thank you for the answer. We want just the time part of the output and
capture it in a variable if possible. The return type of the timeit()
function seems to be None. So, how do you work around it?
With Sincere Regards,
Kannappan.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Volker Braun wrote
Use timeit() for precise measurements. Note that it measures wall time, not
cpu time.
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:29:19 PM UTC, KnS wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Thank you! That was helpful! But, we have just observed the following
> problems with this command. First of all, there are no subproces
Hi!
Thank you! That was helpful! But, we have just observed the following
problems with this command. First of all, there are no subprocesses being
called, as far as I can see. We are just working with block_matrix(),
matrix() commands, which are native to sage.
But, even with this, given one's
Hi Kannappan,
On 2013-12-21, Kannappan Sampath wrote:
> I'd like to know how to get some idea on the runtime of a certain program.
> In particular, I'd like to know the following:
>
> how to run the program for various values of input, say parametrised by the
> set of positive integers and extrac
On Nov 7, 5:33 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello John,
> Isn't there a problem with this:
>
> "the latter for resources used by those of its
> children that have terminated and have been waited for."
Yep, that is indeed a problem.
>
> We want to add up the time us
On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> On Nov 7, 4:22 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Simon,
>
>
>
> > > This is indeed non-trivial! Even when i compute maxideal(19), which
> > > takes a couple of seconds, singular.cputime(t) only returns 0.001
Isn't there a problem with this:
"the latter for resources used by those of its
children that have terminated and have been waited for."
We want to add up the time used by child processes *which are still
running*. For example, if sage needs to use maxima (say) it checks to
see if max
Dear Michael,
On Nov 7, 4:22 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> > This is indeed non-trivial! Even when i compute maxideal(19), which
> > takes a couple of seconds, singular.cputime(t) only returns 0.001. I
> > doubt that this is the correct time.
>
> If you can reproduce this
On Nov 7, 2007 7:22 AM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 4:17 pm, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dear Martin,
> >
>
> Hello Simon,
>
> > > Actually, for Singular it is trivial:
> >
> > > sage: R=singular.ring(0,'(x(1..10))','dp')
> > > sage: t= singular.cputime()
>
On Nov 7, 4:17 pm, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>
Hello Simon,
> > Actually, for Singular it is trivial:
>
> > sage: R=singular.ring(0,'(x(1..10))','dp')
> > sage: t= singular.cputime()
> > sage: singular.eval('ideal G = maxideal(14)')
> > sage: singular.cputime(t)
>
>
Dear Martin,
> Actually, for Singular it is trivial:
>
> sage: R=singular.ring(0,'(x(1..10))','dp')
> sage: t= singular.cputime()
> sage: singular.eval('ideal G = maxideal(14)')
> sage: singular.cputime(t)
This is indeed non-trivial! Even when i compute maxideal(19), which
takes a couple of seco
On Nov 7, 5:08 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2007 4:34 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is true that the cpu time does not include any of the child
> > processes, and also that in many cases most of the computation is done
> > by those.
>
> > In t
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Simon King wrote:
> John,
>
> > Many people agree with you that it would be more useful to have the
> > aggregate time.
> So do i.
I made this trac ticket #1118
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1118
> In the meantime, it would be ok for me to determine th
John,
> Many people agree with you that it would be more useful to have the
> aggregate time.
So do i.
In the meantime, it would be ok for me to determine the cpu time of,
say, a Singular child process via the Singular timer. But apparently
this is non-trivial, according to this example:
sage:
On Nov 7, 2007 4:34 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is true that the cpu time does not include any of the child
> processes, and also that in many cases most of the computation is done
> by those.
>
> In this case the cardinality is either computed via a call to the
> libpari func
Paul,
It is true that the cpu time does not include any of the child
processes, and also that in many cases most of the computation is done
by those.
In this case the cardinality is either computed via a call to the
libpari function ellap, or by running gp and calling the sea
implementation ther
20 matches
Mail list logo
