Performance =========== At this time, we have focused mostly on implementing functionality into the **astropy-healpix** package, performance is not as good in most cases as the `healpy `__ library. Once the API is stable, we will focus on improving performance. Benchmark --------- To get an idea of how the performance of the two packages compare, we have included some simple benchmarks that compare the healpy-compatible interface of **astropy-healpix** with healpy itself. These benchmarks are run with: .. code-block:: bash $ python -m astropy_healpix.bench Running benchmarks... fct nest nside size time_healpy time_self ratio ------- ----- ----- ------- ----------- ---------- ------- pix2ang True 1 10 0.0000081 0.0003575 43.91 pix2ang True 128 10 0.0000082 0.0003471 42.52 pix2ang True 1 1000 0.0000399 0.0004751 11.92 pix2ang True 128 1000 0.0000345 0.0004575 13.28 pix2ang True 1 1000000 0.0434032 0.1589150 3.66 pix2ang True 128 1000000 0.0364285 0.1383810 3.80 pix2ang False 1 10 0.0000080 0.0004040 50.30 pix2ang False 128 10 0.0000082 0.0003322 40.63 pix2ang False 1 1000 0.0000400 0.0005005 12.50 pix2ang False 128 1000 0.0000548 0.0005045 9.21 pix2ang False 1 1000000 0.0342841 0.1429310 4.17 pix2ang False 128 1000000 0.0478645 0.1405270 2.94 For small arrays, ``pix2ang`` in **astropy-healpix** performs worse, but in both caes the times are less than a millisecond, and such differences may therefore not matter. For larger arrays, the difference is a factor of a few at most. We will add more benchmarks over time to provide a more complete picture.