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

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: looking for sort procedure
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: looking for sort procedure [message #7769 is a reply to message #7750] Thu, 16 January 1997 00:00 Go to previous message
thompson is currently offline  thompson
Messages: 584
Registered: August 1991
Senior Member
kak@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Karl Krieger) writes:

> "R. Bauer" <r.bauer@kfa-juelich.de> writes:

>> It was surprising me that's idl's build-in sort procedure is very very
>> slow.

>> for this example it needs on may RS6000 AIX more than 2 minutes.

>> a = indgen(10000)
>> b = [a,a]
>> print,systime(0)
>> s = b(sort(b))
>> print,systime(0)

>> end

>> This is much too long.

> Hi all,

> there seems to be a bug in the implementation of this routine:
> I tested it on a SUN Ultrasparc and on an IBM RS6000, which
> has about the same speed (at least for the Monte Carlo simulation
> coded in F77, which usually runs on these boxes).

> Result for SUN: below 1 second, 6 seconds for a=lindgen(100000L)
> Result for IBM: about 145 seconds

> Is this a known bug/feature? There seems to be a major problem
> either in the implementation of sort or in the way it uses
> the machine's resources (bad optimization?).

I also tried the above example on a DEC AXP 3000/600 where it took about 60
seconds. I wonder if there's something in the code that is optimized for Sun
workstations, maybe going back to the days when the first Unix port of IDL was
called SunIDL?

Bill Thompson
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: File handeling architecture hints wanted
Next Topic: Resource temporarily unavailable

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

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 13:39:49 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.12117 seconds