From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D3DBC40 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:41:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from comtv.ru (comtv.ru [217.10.32.4]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9VHfvTF000584 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:41:57 +0100 Received: from [10.0.66.9] ([10.0.66.9] verified) by comtv.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 43372301; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:41:51 +0300 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:41:17 +0300 (MSK) From: malc X-X-Sender: malc@home.oyster.ru To: Hal Daume III Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] bigarrays much lower than normal ones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 418523E5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; malc:01 malc:01 pulsesoft:01 caml-list:01 bigarrays:01 wrote:01 arrays:01 bigarray:01 unacceptable:01 bigarrays:01 prev:01 dfa:01 pulsesoft:01 slower:01 groups:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Hal Daume III wrote: > I've been hitting the limiting size of normal float arrays and was having > a look at the Bigarray module. Unfortunately, it seems roughly 3-4 times > *slower* than the standard array, which is pretty much unacceptable for > me. Am I doing something naively wrong, or are the Bigarrays truly this > slow? The timing results I get (i686, redhat) are along the liens of: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&threadm=fa.hj2u7jv.t1ms25%40ifi.uio.no&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbigarray%2Bmalc%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dfa.hj2u7jv.t1ms25%2540ifi.uio.no%26rnum%3D1 -- mailto:malc@pulsesoft.com