Show by example...

[JÞB]

---

@BowenM wrote:

This discussion got me curious so I benchmarked it (5m times)

NI method: 0.0519 sec

removed duplicate calculations: 0.0146 sec

complex math: 0.0104 sec

NI method with formula node: 0.449 sec

... I didn't realize formula node was that slow.

---

Please attach your benchmark code.  Include version information as well.  I don't doubt your statement but , providing us the ability to duplicate the experiment is a large piece of the scientific method.  

[X.]

This is no news: Do Formula Nodes, Expression Nodes, or Traditional Numeric Nodes Provide the Best Run-Time Performance? 

[PaulG.]

---

@X. wrote:

This is no news: Do Formula Nodes, Expression Nodes, or Traditional Numeric Nodes Provide the Best Run-Time Performance? 

I assumed years ago primitives would work best. And why not? There has to be some fumbling about with the data just to get it to a place where primitives can perform the functions anyway.

[altenbach]

---

@X. wrote:

This is no news: Do Formula Nodes, Expression Nodes, or Traditional Numeric Nodes Provide the Best Run-Time Performance? 

---

I think in the very (very!) distand past I have seen cases where the formula node was equivalent or slightly faster than pure LabVIEW primitives, but this no longer seems to be the case. Maybe the compiler has advanced since?

If you want to go even slower, try the Mathscript node. 😄