<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <link>http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/245456</link>
    <title>MATLAB Central Newsreader - speed of matlab sparse against c++ sparse librariers</title>
    <description>Feed for thread: speed of matlab sparse against c++ sparse librariers</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>&amp;copy;1994-2012 by MathWorks, Inc.</copyright>
    <webmaster>webmaster@mathworks.com</webmaster>
    <generator>MATLAB Central Newsreader</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    
    <item>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:00:04 -0500</pubDate>
      <title>speed of matlab sparse against c++ sparse librariers</title>
      <link>http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/245456#631182</link>
      <author>A B</author>
      <description>Hi,&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I need to have a very solver for my FEM software.&lt;br&gt;
For prototyping I've written all code in MATLAB and it's already quiet fast, however I want to have more performance.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Now I consider rewriting the solver in C++ with sparse matrix libraries as MTL.&lt;br&gt;
Therefore I wondered what the performance gain of using a C++ sparse library over MATLAB would be. Will it be about the same, twice as fast etc.?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I'm just interested in performing some sparse matrix multiplications (nxn with n~30 000) and solve the system with preconditioned conjugate gradients. I'm not worried about the assembly of the FEM matrices.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Thanks a lot</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

