ENH: Use exponentials in place of inversion in Rayleigh and geometric#18666
Merged
charris merged 1 commit intonumpy:mainfrom Mar 23, 2021
Merged
ENH: Use exponentials in place of inversion in Rayleigh and geometric#18666charris merged 1 commit intonumpy:mainfrom
charris merged 1 commit intonumpy:mainfrom
Conversation
Use exponentials rather than generating exponentials via inversion
Contributor
Author
|
These two generators are simple transformation of exponentials. Previously these were implemented using the inverse Some timings on Ubuntu showed an improvement of
Windows has different gains. For some reason that is not totally obvious to me the log on windows is much faster than on Ubuntu. Probably less accurate, but just a guess, so the gains on Windows are less since the inverse method is faster. The gains are around 100% for Rayleigh and +25% for geometric. |
Member
|
Thanks Kevin. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Use exponentials rather than generating exponentials via inversion