commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter A <peter.abe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] Re: [LINEAR] Performance and bugs of 2.0 library
Date Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:55:04 GMT
All,

I posted the new stability and runtime performance benchmarks at:

http://code.google.com/p/java-matrix-benchmark

This includes the 2.1a SVN code from last Friday.  I don't really see much
of a change since 2.0.  If a commons-math developer has some time it would
be helpful if he/she/it could take a look at:

jmbench.impl.runtime.McBrAlgorithmFactory.java

and tell me if I'm testing commons-math correctly.

- Peter

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> This comparison is also confounded by the fact that most C++ libraries try
> to make use of native binary libraries such as ATLAS and often get a
> dramatic speedup as a result.
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Peter Abeles <peter.abeles@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I have seen some adhoc comparisons on-line. Mostly just matrix multiply.
> > Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something.  Based
> > on personal experience I would expect about a 2-3 times speed hit
> > between well written java and c/c++ code because of array overhead and
> > language constraints.  For pure arithmetic I have gotten nearly
> > identical performance.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>



-- 
"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."    — Voltaire
(1694-1778), on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce
Satan.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message