[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is chol(...,"lower") significantly faster than default chol(...,"upp
|
From: |
Julien Bect |
|
Subject: |
Re: Is chol(...,"lower") significantly faster than default chol(...,"upper")? |
|
Date: |
Mon, 9 May 2016 14:29:31 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0 |
Le 09/05/2016 13:28, siko1056 a écrit :
The results on my computer are as follows:
dense A (upper and lower)
3.9101e-05 4.3154e-05 8.8930e-05 4.2987e-04 3.3204e-02 1.9014e-01
2.9087e-05 4.2915e-05 8.7976e-05 4.2486e-04 2.2402e-02 1.3919e-01
sparse B (upper and lower)
6.5088e-05 9.7036e-05 9.2983e-05 1.4615e-04 1.6081e-03 4.9210e-03
4.7922e-05 6.7949e-05 9.2030e-05 1.1492e-04 1.7529e-03 4.7388e-03
Here are the results that I get (averaged over 100 repetitions):
1.3947e-05 1.5020e-05 4.5061e-05 1.0204e-04 2.1206e-03 1.1320e-02
1.1921e-05 1.3113e-05 5.3167e-05 1.3709e-04 3.6000e-03 1.9302e-02
2.0027e-05 2.2888e-05 4.8161e-05 7.4506e-05 2.6200e-03 1.0291e-02
1.5020e-05 1.6928e-05 3.8147e-05 6.1035e-05 2.5260e-03 9.7356e-03
I agree that "lower" doesn't seem significantly faster than "upper".