[SciPy-dev] fft benchmarks for new routines

Chuck Harris Chuck.Harris at sdl.usu.edu
Mon May 12 16:40:29 CDT 2003

Hi Pearu,

>Then we should bench your algorithms also against FFTW as FFTW is faster
>than FFTPACK.

Where are the wrappers for FFTW? They seem to have disappeared from
scipy, certainly they didn't come down with the latest CVS update.

What order is preferred for the real transforms? The most natural order
for my routine is real in the bottom and imaginary reversed in the top.
Not reversing the top is easy, but interlacing real and imaginary is more
difficult and time consuming.

By the way, I think I can get rid of the out of cache issues pretty
easily by chunking the data, but micro-optimization questions of efficient
stack addressing come to mind. These sort of things tend to be processor
and compiler dependent, and I don't want to get into that -- so maybe 
different routines for large and small transforms.

>These generic functions give additional overhead and in principle we
>could implement them in C in future but right now it's better to keep
>them in Python until the interface stabilizes. After all, the overhead of
>calling Python functions will be relevant only for small fft sizes.

Yep, I looked at doing the checks in the C interface and decided to pass
for the time being.

Scipy-dev mailing list
Scipy-dev at scipy.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3100 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://projects.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20030512/cbd01d21/attachment.bin 

More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list