octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the competition's expm vs ours


From: David Bateman
Subject: Re: the competition's expm vs ours
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:01:36 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018)

Kai Habel wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso schrieb:
2008/11/12 David Bateman <address@hidden>:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
I just ran into a "benchmark" in a blog somewhere that suggests that
our expm is slower than Matlab's.

Jaroslav can probably do a better job at that than I can as he worked on
this part of the code... However, can you put us to the benchmark?
It wasn't anything impressive. Just ran expm a couple of times on
rand(300), and we lost by a factor of 8 or so. I can't find it again.
:-/

I just want to confirm if we are indeed this slow. And also some
hints, because I can't find the actual implementation.

- Jordi G. H.

Looking for 'expm matlab octave' Google gave back this thread [1].

I ran a quick benchmark on a 1.4GHz Pentium M using today's tip and
matlab 7.6.0

matlab 7.6.0
M = rand(300,300);
t=0.25; T=2;
tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 2.799052 seconds.
tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 1.789023 seconds.
tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 1.611524 seconds.
tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 1.607993 seconds.
tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 1.750429 seconds.


octave:15> clear all
octave:16> M = rand(300,300);
octave:17> t=0.25; T=2;
octave:18> tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 4.506 seconds.
octave:19> tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 4.303 seconds.
octave:20> tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 4.374 seconds.
octave:21> tic; inv(M) * (expm(-t*M) - expm(-T*M)); toc;
Elapsed time is 4.457 seconds.

So, I see a factor of 2...3 for this particular code - without ATLAS if
its relevant here.

Yes the absence of ATLAS is important as we use xLANGE and xGEBAL in the expm that are part of LAPACK. So we need to compare with ATLAS installed..

Regards
D.


Kai

[1]
http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=19&threadid=41499&STARTPAGE=2



--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) The information contained in this communication has been classified as: [x] General Business Information [ ] Motorola Internal Use Only [ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]