-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Compare SP/TM step performance to htm.matlab #7
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
With Sparse synapses for the SP and a low synapse sparsity of 7%:
|
The TM is complicated and its stepping performance depends a lot on the circumstances, such as how much new segment / synapse growth was stimulated. These ops have complexity linear to the number of synapses (insertion into SparseMatrixCSC) and dominate the performance for large numbers of synapses. Here's a practical example, but one where very little new synapse/segment growth was triggered: Julia TM performance:
Matlab TM performance (test_tsprediction.m)
This time is very close to the SP's time, showing potential shortfalls with Matlab's timing scheme. |
not very relevant anymore |
With the same settings for the hot gym test, comparing benchmark data from the Julia implementation with the old Matlab implementation.
Julia:
Matlab:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: