ASPN ActiveState Programmer Network
ActiveState
/ Home / Perl / PHP / Python / Tcl / XSLT /
/ Safari / My ASPN /
Cookbooks | Documentation | Mailing Lists | Modules | News Feeds | Products | User Groups


Recent Messages
List Archives
About the List
List Leaders
Subscription Options

View Subscriptions
Help

View by Topic
ActiveState
.NET Framework
Open Source
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl
Web Services
XML & XSLT

View by Category
Database
General
SOAP
System Administration
Tools
User Interfaces
Web Programming
XML Programming


MyASPN >> Mail Archive >> scipy-dev
scipy-dev
Re: [SciPy-dev] sparse matrix support status
by Ed Schofield other posts by this author
Nov 22 2005 3:10PM messages near this date
Re: [SciPy-dev] sparse matrix support status | Re: [SciPy-dev] sparse matrix support status
Hi Jonathan,

Thanks very much for the benchmarks and detailed comments.  Your  
conclusions also ring true for me, especially that matrix  
construction is currently slow and that we need better documentation.

I have only one question for now.  Could you please explain the comment

 >  dok_matrix.setdiag() appears to change the matrix shape if you're not
 >  careful, rendering it pretty useless for building the matrices for  
this
 >  problem

in more detail?  The code for setdiag() is:

     def setdiag(self, values, k=0):
         N = len(values)
         for n in range(N):
             self[n, n+k] = values[n]
         return

which grows the matrix only if it's currently smaller than len 
(values) x len(values).  What's the problem this behaviour caused?   
Would you prefer to fix the size of a dok_matrix in advance and have  
a run-time check on the len(values)?  Or was the problem with the  
second argument?

-- Ed



On 22/11/2005, at 8:05 PM, Jonathan Guyer wrote:

> 
>  On Oct 7, 2005, at 4:00 PM, I wrote:
> 
> >  regardless, pysparse is BSD
> > licensed, so it's perfectly legal to use his code to improve
> > scipy.sparse (assuming that rigorous benchmarking determines that  
> > there
> > are, in fact, improvements to be made). We'll do some tests and, if a
> > merge is warranted, we'll run it by Roman out of courtesy.
> 
>  I've finally done some benchmarking of scipy.sparse and PySparse and
>  posted my results and comments on plone[*]:
> 
>       <http://www.scipy.org/wikis/featurerequests/SparseSolvers>
> 
>  Bottom line is that, with a couple of exceptions, PySparse is both
>  faster and less memory intensive than SciPy. I don't know whether
>  anything can be lifted from PySparse to improve SciPy's  
>  implementation.
> 
>  [*] Not that this comes as a surprise to anybody here, but the SciPy
>  plone wiki is scary slow. I also couldn't get it to accept reST, even
>  though I've seen other people using it there.
>  -- 
>  Jonathan E. Guyer, PhD
>  Metallurgy Division
>  National Institute of Standards and Technology
>  <http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/>
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Scipy-dev mailing list
>  Scipy-dev@[...].net
>  http://www.scipy.net/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Attachments:
unknown1
unknown2
unknown3
unknown4

Thread:
Travis Oliphant
Robert Cimrman
Travis Oliphant
Robert Cimrman
Fernando Perez
Jonathan Guyer
Fernando Perez
Jonathan Guyer
Jonathan Guyer
Robert Cimrman
Jonathan Guyer
Ed Schofield
Jonathan Guyer
Ed Schofield
Travis Oliphant
Jonathan Guyer
Nils Wagner
Jonathan Guyer
Robert Cimrman
Robert Kern
Robert Cimrman
Travis Oliphant
Fernando Perez
Jonathan Guyer
Travis Oliphant
Nils Wagner
Jeff Whitaker
Nils Wagner

Privacy Policy | Email Opt-out | Feedback | Syndication
© ActiveState Software Inc. All rights reserved