[Scilab-users] using csvRead vs mfscanf and fscanfMat
Lester Anderson
arctica1963 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 17 10:48:10 CEST 2016
Thanks for the clarification Rafael
Cheers
Lester
On 17 October 2016 at 09:43, Rafael Guerra <jrafaelbguerra at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The problem is not with csvRead, but with the need in the example we are considering here to use the evstr function afterwards on large string data to convert it to useable numeric values.
> See time breakdown here below for another 50,000 line input data test:
>
> time1= 0.6552 // mfscanf
> time2= 0.4680 // fscanfMat
> time3a= 0.2028 // csvRead
> time3= 34.3514 // csvRead + evstr
>
> Note that method#2 writes a temporary file to disk and so it will run much faster on PC's with SSD drives.
>
> Regards,
> Rafael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users [mailto:users-bounces at lists.scilab.org] On Behalf Of Lester Anderson
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:26 AM
> To: Users mailing list for Scilab <users at lists.scilab.org>
> Subject: Re: [Scilab-users] using csvRead vs mfscanf and fscanfMat
>
> Hello, I ran the same code on my machine and actually got worse results:
>
> -->exec('Q:\Scilab_code\csvread_write.sce', -1)
>
> 1. 12. 2015. 1. 15. 0. 12. 1.1 - 2.2
>
> 1. 12. 2015. 1. 15. 0. 12. 1.1 - 2.2
>
> !01.12.2015 1 15 0.12 1.1 -2.2 !
>
> time1= 1.21681
> time2= 2.19961
> time3= 51.7923
>
> Windows 7 64-bit and 64 Gb Ram. (Scilab 5.5.2). Is this a bug if the
> csvRead result is so different?
>
> Lester
>
>>>
>>> The results for a 50,000-lines input ASCII file are:
>>> time1= 0.686404 // mfscanf
>>> time2= 0.499203 // fscanfMat
>>> time3= 35.3966 // csvRead
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.scilab.org
> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
More information about the users
mailing list