my_1_minute_noise_with_gaps_truncated - Array len is 2646070

my_1_minute_noise_with_gaps - Array len is 2649674

> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:28:49 -0400

> From: hodge@stsci.edu

> To: numpy-discussion@scipy.org

> Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy FFT.FFT slow with certain samples

>

> On 08/28/2015 02:02 PM, Joseph Codadeen wrote:

> >

> > * my_1_minute_noise_with_gaps_truncated took***30.75620985s* to process.

> > * my_1_minute_noise_with_gaps took *22307.13917s*to process.

> >

>

> You didn't say how long those arrays were, but I can make a good guess

> that the truncated one had a length that could be factored into small,

> prime numbers, while the non-truncated one had a length that was either

> prime or could only be factored into large primes.

>

> Phil

> _______________________________________________

> NumPy-Discussion mailing list

> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

> From: hodge@stsci.edu

> To: numpy-discussion@scipy.org

> Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy FFT.FFT slow with certain samples

>

> On 08/28/2015 02:02 PM, Joseph Codadeen wrote:

> >

> > * my_1_minute_noise_with_gaps_truncated took***30.75620985s* to process.

> > * my_1_minute_noise_with_gaps took *22307.13917s*to process.

> >

>

> You didn't say how long those arrays were, but I can make a good guess

> that the truncated one had a length that could be factored into small,

> prime numbers, while the non-truncated one had a length that was either

> prime or could only be factored into large primes.

>

> Phil

> _______________________________________________

> NumPy-Discussion mailing list

> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion