4 ms·
I'd like the article even more if it used numpy.convolve in the benchmark. comparing pure python and numpy fft feels not right to me. the result will be simil
by froh 2y ago
I'd like the article even more if it used numpy.convolve in the benchmark.
comparing pure python and numpy fft feels not right to me.
the result will be similar, sure, but the effect might then only show for much larger inputs.
- clearprop 2y agoGreat feedback. I have updated the post using convolve instead. There is a huge difference convolve/naive. On the other hand, convolved is slower than the FFT as expected, but for greater than 3000 degree polynomials or so. See diff: https://github.com/alrevuelta/myblog/commit/9fcc3dc84b1d9b66cbb8b1e0ac4511150651314c https://github.com/alrevuelta/myblog/commit/9fcc3dc84b1d9b66...