Simon Moore:
There is a 2MB white paper showing execution time comparisons for MP
vs SE for a huge variety of different commands at
http://www.stata.com/statamp/report.pdf
It shows -xtlogit, fe- (AKA -clogit-) running in about 65% of the time
on two processors as one, and -xtlogit, re- running in less than 50%
of the time (more than 100% efficiency, due to cache management).
Unfortunately, -bootstrap- and -simulate- are not reported on, but if
you read through which commands get the largest improvements, it seems
likely they are among that group.
On 7/1/07, Simon Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Statalist,
There's several reasons why I'd like to upgrade from Stata 9 to Stata
10. But I have a question about MP and whether this is something I
should be looking at (as I have dual core CPU).
From the info I've found (http://www.stata.com/statamp/) MP is suitable
and *should* be faster for most analyses. The same info also states
that not all processes will run in parallel, however. It would seem
silly for me to pay extra only to find that the most computationally
intensive work I do (which isn't a great deal) cannot make use of this
extra processing power. So I was wondering whether anyone on Statalist
might be able to offer some thoughts?
Probably the most intensive work involves such things as xtlogit and
I've also looked at reoprob - with a large survey and bootstrapping
would MP work through user written commands (i.e. reoprob) any faster?
Other things that can take time include cycling through large -foreach
num- lists and using postfile (neither reoprob nor postfile are covered
in report.pdf at http://www.stata.com/statamp/) to generate a new
dataset. Would these be noticeably quicker under MP?
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
