Pierre GM wrote: > All, > I've updated this famous reimplementation of maskedarray I keep ranting about. [...] > I also put the file `timer_comparison.py`, that runs some unittests with each > implementation > (numpy.core.ma and maskedarray), and outputs the minimum times. > On my machine, there doesn't seem to be a lot of differences, maskedarray > being slightly faster.
Same for mine: Thinkpad T41, Pentium M, ubuntu Edgy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/programs/py/tests$ python timer_comparison.py #1.................................................. numpy.core.ma: 0.492 - 0.493 maskedarray : 0.481 - 0.482 #2.................................................. numpy.core.ma: 1.440 - 1.440 maskedarray : 1.215 - 1.215 #3.................................................. numpy.core.ma: 2.272 - 2.274 maskedarray : 2.156 - 2.156 I admit that I have not studied the question, but my impression is that you have made some nice improvements. Numpy unified the Numeric/numarray split, but now we have a MaskedArray split. Any prospect for unification, say in numpy 1.1? Might it make sense for maskedarray to replace numpy.core.ma in 1.1? Eric _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
