On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

On 28 Oct 2014 07:32, "Jerome Kieffer" <Jerome.Kieffer@esrf.fr> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:28:37 +0000
> Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > It's definitely attractive. Some potential issues that might need dealing
> > with, based on a quick skim:
>
> In my tests, numpy's FFTPACK isn't that bad considering
> * (virtually) no extra overhead for installation
> * (virtually) no plan creation time
> * not that slower for each transformation

Well, this is what makes FFTS intriguing :-). It's BSD licensed, so we could distribute it by default like we do fftpack, it uses cache-oblivious algorithms so it has no planning step, and even without planning it benchmarks as faster than FFTW's most expensive planning mode (in the cases that FFTS supports, i.e. power-of-two transforms).

The paper has lots of benchmark graphs, including measurements of setup time:
http://anthonix.com/ffts/preprints/tsp2013.pdf

Nice. In this case, the solution may be to implement the Bluestein transform to deal with prime/near-prime numbers on top of FFTS.

I did not look much, but it did not obviously support building on windows as well ?

David

-n

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion