On 3/12/07, Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the broadcasting is causing the slow-downs.
> Currently, the code has two path-ways. One gets called when the inputs
> are scalars which is equivalent to the old code and the second gets
> called when broadcasting is
On 3/8/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The slow down is probably related to this from a previous thread:
>
> In [46]: def test1() :
>: x = normal(0,1,1000)
>:
>
> In [47]: def test2() :
>: for i in range(1000) :
>: x = normal(0,1)
>
On 3/8/07, Matthew Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > My problem is not space, but time.
> > > I am creating a small array over and over,
> > > and this is turning out to be a bottleneck.
>
> How about making one large random number array and taking small views?
>
How is that different from:
would be even faster.
cheers
Daniel
On 3/7/07, Timothy Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Mahler wrote:
> > > Is there an efficient way to fill an existing array with random
> > > numbe
Is there an efficient way to fill an existing array with random
numbers without allocating a new array?
thanks
Daniel
___
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@scipy.org
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
