[Numpy-discussion] FFTS for numpy's FFTs (was: Re: Choosing between NumPy and SciPy functions)

David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 11:06:46 EDT 2014


I

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

> On 28 Oct 2014 07:32, "Jerome Kieffer" <Jerome.Kieffer at esrf.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:28:37 +0000
> > Nathaniel Smith <njs at 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 at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20141028/3413272f/attachment.html>


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list