Re: More on interpreter speed

[Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E]]

It's also worth pointing out that cputime is more accurate, and that if you use 
the form

        [t, u, s] = cputime();

then you can distinguish between time spent in the OS (s) and time spent in 
Octave (u).
Might be useful to do that here.

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  4-Oct-2006, Quentin Spencer wrote:
>
> | This may be of interest to those who have recently expressed interest in 
> | finding ways of speeding up the interpreter. I was recently testing two 
> | different ways of computing the same vector inside a function to see 
> | which was fastest. My code was organized in the form:
> | 
> | tic
> |   block A
> | toc
> | tic
> |   block B
> | toc
> | 
> | where blocks A and B compute the same thing in different ways, but using 
> | some (not all) of the same intermediate variables. I was consistently 
> | getting results that looked like this:
> | Elapsed time is 0.025230 seconds.
> | Elapsed time is 0.001198 seconds.
>
> This could just be a bug.  Can you post a complete example that
> demonstrates the problem?
>
> jwe

--
Tom Holroyd, Ph.D.
We experience the world not as it is, but as we expect it to be.