Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

2
  • $\begingroup$ Lots of good points in one place. +1 (I don't know why this is CW; you deserve the credit!) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ +1 @Szabolcs for the clarity of your answer, I have tried to follow such guidelines, e.g. use Timing instead of AbsoluteTiming, time long computations, repeat measurements a sufficient number of times, check time resolution, etc, in a recent benchmark test on the answers of this post. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2016 at 10:08