From help-request at octave dot org Sat Jan 22 09:51:11 2005 Subject: Re: Very slow filter.cc From: "John W. Eaton" To: Miroslaw Kwasniak Cc: help at octave dot org Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:55:07 -0500 On 22-Jan-2005, Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote: | On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:20:52PM +0100, Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote: | > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 09:45:37AM +0100, David Bateman wrote: | > > | > > t = cputime; y = filter(b,1,x); cputime - t | > > | > > rather than using tic/toc and see if there is better consistency between | > > 2.0.17 and the 2.1.x versions... | | Test code: | | OCTAVE_VERSION | x = randn(1e6,1); | b = randn(500,1); | t = cputime; | y = filter(b,1,x); | cputime - t | | | > $ sh run.sh | > OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.0.17 | > ans = 2.0600 | > OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.50 | > ans = 15.380 | > OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.57 | > ans = 15.690 | > OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.63 | > ans = 14.060 | > | > 2.1.63 is a little better because it's compiled for 686 - rest are debian | > 386 packages. | | | The same machine as above (Athlon 1600XP), fresh cvs source | | OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.64 | ans = 4.1000 | | Hmmm, ... | | Only important diff between 2.1.63/2.1.64 octave_config_info output: | | - CC_VERSION = 3.3.4 (Debian 1:3.3.4-13) | + CC_VERSION = 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-5) | - CXX_VERSION = 3.3.4 | + CXX_VERSION = 3.3.5 You can easily compare the current code and the code from 2.0.x and see if you can make it faster. If you don't care whether you can interrupt the filter operation, then you can remove the OCTAVE_QUIT; lines in the new code and it might run a little faster. I don't think that is a reasonable thing to do for most Octave users. jwe ------------------------------------------------------------- Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL. Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html -------------------------------------------------------------