
May 31, 2016
5:36 p.m.
Lion Krischer <lion.krischer@gmail.com> wrote:
I added a slightly more comprehensive benchmark to the PR. Please have a look. It tests the total time for 100 FFTs with and without cache. It is over 30 percent faster with cache which it totally worth it in my opinion as repeated FFTs of the same size are a very common use case.
All the calls to trancendental functions are stored in the cache. Without a cache, we get excessive calls to sin(x) and cos(x) whenever FFTs of the same size are repeated. This can indeed matter at lot. Sturla