1 | initial version |
(This was just going to be a comment but it got too long)
Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down.
On profiling programs:
sage: %prun a=factorial(1000000)
2 function calls in 0.286 seconds
Ordered by: internal time
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 <string>:1(<module>)
1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 {method 'disable' of _lsprof.Profiler' objects}
More details here.
Don't know.
Perhaps the naive answer is that running it on a "faster" computer would do the job. ;-) My experience back around sage-4.x was that compiling it resulted in faster runs, so my recommendation would be to compile sage on a linux machine.
Just ran the factorial command and got
sage: %time a=factorial(1000000)
CPU times: user 0.27 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.28 s
Wall time: 0.28 s
I'm running a compiled sage 5.10 on arch linux.
2 | improved style |
Hi,
(This was just going to be a comment but it got too long)
Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down.
Don't know.
On profiling programs:
sage: %prun a=factorial(1000000)
2 function calls in 0.286 seconds
Ordered by: internal time
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 <string>:1(<module>)
1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 {method 'disable' of _lsprof.Profiler' objects}
More details here.
Don't know.
Perhaps the naive answer is that running it on a "faster" computer would do the job. ;-) My experience back around sage-4.x was that compiling it resulted in faster runs, so my recommendation would be to compile sage on a linux machine.
Just ran the factorial command and got
sage: %time a=factorial(1000000)
CPU times: user 0.27 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.28 s
Wall time: 0.28 s
I'm running a compiled sage 5.10 on arch linux.
Hope it helps!
3 | No.3 Revision |
Hi,
(This was just going to be a comment but it got too long)
Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down.
Don't know.You can create a worksheet and run the command
%time a=factorial(1000000)
Here is what I got.
On profiling programs:
sage: %prun a=factorial(1000000)
2 function calls in 0.286 seconds
Ordered by: internal time
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 <string>:1(<module>)
1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 {method 'disable' of _lsprof.Profiler' objects}
More details here.
Perhaps the naive answer is that running it on a "faster" computer would do the job. ;-) My experience back around sage-4.x was that compiling it resulted in faster runs, so my recommendation would be to compile sage on a linux machine.
Just ran the factorial command and got
sage: %time a=factorial(1000000)
CPU times: user 0.27 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.28 s
Wall time: 0.28 s
I'm running a compiled sage 5.10 on arch linux.
Hope it helps!
Updated to include running time at cloud.sagemath.org