Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version

(This was just going to be a comment but it got too long)

  1. Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down.

  2. 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.

  3. Don't know.

  4. 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.

Hi,

(This was just going to be a comment but it got too long)

  1. Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down.

  2. Don't know.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't know.

  5. 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!

Hi,

(This was just going to be a comment but it got too long)

  1. Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down.

  2. Don't know.You can create a worksheet and run the command

    %time a=factorial(1000000)
    

    Here is what I got. image description

  3. 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.

  4. 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