A reimplementation of MaskedArray

A. M. Archibald peridot.faceted at gmail.com
Thu Nov 9 01:27:38 CST 2006

On 08/11/06, Tim Hochberg <tim.hochberg at ieee.org> wrote:

> It has always been my experience (on various flavors or Pentium) that
> operating on NANs is extremely slow. Does anyone know on what hardware
> NANs are *not* slow? Of course it's always possible I just never notice
> NANs on hardware where they aren't slow.

On an opteron machine I have access to, they appear to be no slower
(and even faster for some transcendental functions) than ordinary

In [13]: a=zeros(1000000)

In [14]: %time for i in xrange(1000): a += 1.1
CPU times: user 6.87 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 6.87 s
Wall time: 6.87

In [15]: a *= NaN

In [16]: %time for i in xrange(1000): a += 1.1
CPU times: user 6.86 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 6.86 s
Wall time: 6.87

On my Pentium M, they are indeed significantly slower (three times? I
didn't really do enough testing to say how much). I am actually rather
offended by this unfair discrimination against a citizen in good
standing of the IEEE floating point community.

A. M. Archibald

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list