![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d98bd91ed2cea43056594b7ce5369b17.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 21. des. 2012, at 16:53, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Paul Anton Letnes <paul.anton.letnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Scipy devs,
1) thanks for doing a great job in general! 2) Why is there a huge performance difference between scipy.fft and scipy.fftpack.fft? It apperars that scipy.fft == numpy.fft:
In [4]: import numpy as np
In [5]: from scipy import fft
In [6]: from scipy import fftpack
In [7]: d = np.linspace(0, 1e3, 1e7)
In [8]: %timeit np.fft.fft(d) 1 loops, best of 3: 1.29 s per loop
In [9]: %timeit fft(d) 1 loops, best of 3: 1.3 s per loop
In [10]: %timeit fftpack.fft(d) 1 loops, best of 3: 651 ms per loop
3) On a related note - what's the best performing python fft library/wrapper out there? I take it from some google research I did that e.g. fftw cannot be used due to the GPL licence.
But you could use e.g. pyfftw that will give you a better wrapper that scipy ever had for FFTW.
The difference in speed is not unexpected: the fft in numpy is there for historical reasons and backward compatibility. Unless you have a very good reason not to use it, you should be using scipy.fftpack instead of numpy.fft when you can depend on scipy.
I understand that this must be something like a backwards compatibility thing. But my point was (although I was perhaps not all that clear): Why does scipy.fft link to numpy.fft, and not scipy.fftpack.fft? The interface seems similar enough: fft(a[, n, axis]) fft(x[, n, axis, overwrite_x]) The extra overwrite_x in fftpack shouldn't be much of an issue. Cheers Paul