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 -n