MathGroup Archive 1991

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Mma 2.0 slower than 1.0?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: Mma 2.0 slower than 1.0?
  • From: barry at (Barry Merriman)
  • Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 15:15:23 PDT

It appears to me that Mma 2.0 is slower than Mma 1.0 on numerical

For example, consider this trivial benchmark (100,000 real  

Timing[ Block[{x = 1.00001,y = 1.0000}, Do[ y *= x, {100000} ]; y] ]

On my NeXTStation, I get, using Mma  kernel 1.2:

{54.1833 Second, 2.718268237192294}

While using Mma kernel 2.0 I get 

{59.4667 Second, 2.71827}

Thus it appears that 2.0 is 10% slower than 1.0 on the trivial
benchmark of doing 100,000 multiplies. Hmm. Has anyone else
benchmarked 1.0 vs 2.0? I thought 2.0 was supposed to be faster!

(I have experimented with Compile-ing the above program, but it
always hits an error and says 


   Numerical error encountered at instruction 23
    ; proceeding with uncompiled evaluation.

and so end up taking about 1 second longer. Probably I need to learn  
more about how to convert the benchmark to a suitable form for the
compiler to enhance...I'm waiting for my docs...)

  • Prev by Date: pipes in Mathematica
  • Next by Date: Re: unmap or remove header command
  • Previous by thread: pipes in Mathematica
  • Next by thread: Re: unmap or remove header command