On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:53 PM, tvn wrote:
> sorry my question wasn't so clear -- but yes the main bottleneck is
> applying the conversion function from string to rational . Thanks for the
> sage_eval function
If the sage_eval function is faster, then string -> Rational needs to be fixed.
s
sorry my question wasn't so clear -- but yes the main bottleneck is
applying the conversion function from string to rational . Thanks for the
sage_eval function
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support
PS
On 10 Mai, 20:06, Simon King wrote:
> sage: [QQ(sage_eval(s)) for s in list(R)[0]]
That would also work on other number representations, such as 1.3E2:
sage: QQ(sage_eval('1.3E2'))
130
Best regards,
Simon
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubs
On 10 Mai, 19:23, tvn wrote:
> > I suggest to use the csv module of Python.
>
> but bottleneck is not reading the data file but rater applying the
> conversion from s -> rat . Also I can't just use QQ(s) , because s can
> be something like '1.2'
OK. First, I undeerstood that your questio
>
>
>
> I suggest to use the csv module of Python.
>
>
but bottleneck is not reading the data file but rater applying the
conversion from s -> rat .Also I can't just use QQ(s) , because s can
be something like '1.2'
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegro
Hi all!
On 10 Mai, 16:33, ObsessiveMathsFreak
wrote:
> I think you should definitely get rid of the try/except statements.
Is that really the case? Using try/except is a very common tool in
Python.
> The conversion is either going to work, or it is not, so you really
> don't need them and they'
I think you should definitely get rid of the try/except statements.
The conversion is either going to work, or it is not, so you really
don't need them and they're probably slowing everything down a LOT.
If the database is very large, you might want to consider converting
outside of sage, with a c
