comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: READS as a speed improvement or simply style?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: READS as a speed improvement or simply style? [message #52442] Thu, 08 February 2007 13:35
Brian Larsen is currently offline  Brian Larsen
Messages: 270
Registered: June 2006
Senior Member
Bob,

nice noticing. I remove the trim function (removes leading and
trailing spaces)

and I get the same speed.
IDL> .run test
Elapsed time: 00:00:08 (8.5097780 sec)
Elapsed time: 00:00:08 (8.4192050 sec)

So the slow culprit is trim.


Brian

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
Brian A. Larsen
Dept. of Physics
Space Science and Engineering Lab (SSEL)
Montana State University - Bozeman
Bozeman, MT 59717



On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, "R.G. Stockwell" <n...@email.please> wrote:
> "Brian Larsen" <balar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170969593.224830.24540@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> Elapsed time: 00:00:29 (29.851995 sec)
> ...
>
>> Elapsed time: 00:00:08 (8.1684880 sec)
>
>> Which is pretty amazing!!!
>
> It may be due in a fair bit to the fact that method one
> calls 10 functions each iteration, and method 2 calls 1.
> There is some overhead involved in each function call.
>
> Personally I don't see that much of a difference
> I get the opposite result: (removing the unkown trim function)
> Elapsed time: 5.2030001 Seconds.
>
> Elapsed time: 7.0630000 Seconds.
>
> Cheers,
> bob
Re: READS as a speed improvement or simply style? [message #52444 is a reply to message #52442] Thu, 08 February 2007 13:29 Go to previous message
news.qwest.net is currently offline  news.qwest.net
Messages: 137
Registered: September 2005
Senior Member
"Brian Larsen" <balarsen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170969593.224830.24540@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
...
Elapsed time: 00:00:29 (29.851995 sec)
...
> Elapsed time: 00:00:08 (8.1684880 sec)
>
> Which is pretty amazing!!!

It may be due in a fair bit to the fact that method one
calls 10 functions each iteration, and method 2 calls 1.
There is some overhead involved in each function call.


Personally I don't see that much of a difference
I get the opposite result: (removing the unkown trim function)
Elapsed time: 5.2030001 Seconds.

Elapsed time: 7.0630000 Seconds.


Cheers,
bob
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: What are the errors in the FFT?
Next Topic: A function for use with psym

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 15:52:28 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00556 seconds