Timeline for Does AbsoluteTiming slow the evaluation time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2012 at 0:20 | vote | accept | CHM | ||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 14:39 | comment | added | CHM | An example is the case of functions built using nested loops, they tend to complete faster without being wrapped in a timing function. Non-loop equivalents do not show this behaviour. | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 11:59 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMma/status/169390397523632131 | ||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 8:01 | comment | added | user21 | Could you show an example, where where using AbsoluteTiming to evaluate expr takes more time, the evaluating expr alone? | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 5:28 | answer | added | Brett Champion | timeline score: 24 | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 5:04 | answer | added | FJRA | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 3:48 | answer | added | David | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 2:53 | comment | added | J. M.'s missing motivation | There used to be the package Utilities`ShowTime` by Roman Maeder that I used whenever I wanted the timing information to be merely printed out as opposed to being part of the output. You might want to look into it, and perhaps modify the code so that it uses AbsoluteTiming[] instead of Timing[]. | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 2:44 | history | asked | CHM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |