English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The current version of a sentence I'm writing has the structure:

Computing [such and such] is the most computationally expensive part of [algorithm].

At the moment, I cannot think of a better phrase to replace "computationally expensive". I know it is legitimate to say this ("computationally expensive" has been published numerous times). However, it sounds a little informal to me.

What are some alternatives to "computationally expensive" in the above sentence?

share|improve this question
Why does this sound informal to you? It's technical jargon (as e.James says) and it not a term commonly heard on the street, for instance. – kajaco Sep 14 '10 at 14:42
Perhaps it's because "expensive" pertains to "spending" and how do you spend computation? You can spend money, spend time, etc. – Douglas S. Stones Sep 17 '10 at 5:54
It is spending time (cycles) and/or money (memory, albeit a stretch). – kajaco Sep 17 '10 at 15:48
up vote 7 down vote accepted

The correct answer will depend on your audience. For a highly technical audience such as engineers and programmers, you could keep the original sentence or use one of the more precise terms suggested by Midhat. Everyone in that audience will immediately understand your message because they are already familiar with the underlying concepts. To them, the important information is the how and the why, and your sentence delivers.

For a less technical audience that is still somewhat familiar with the technology, I would choose a term that has more specific meaning for the members of that audience:

  • We can improve [algorithm] by making [such and such] more efficient
  • [such and such] requires more (time/memory) than any other part of [algorithm]
  • [algorithm] does not meet our needs because it spends so much time on [such and such]

For a non-technical audience like high-level management, the technical details should be an afterthought. If you are worried that the term "computationally expensive" is overkill for your audience, you should probably remove the other technical details as well. This does not imply that your audience is too stupid to understand what you are saying, just that they are more interested in other things:

  • We can improve [business application] by spending more money on [resource] (for [algorithm])
share|improve this answer
Thanks, dot-point 2 is what I'm after. Dot-point 1 is what the reader is meant to infer from the sentence. [Oh, and it's a mixed-specialty academic audience.] – Douglas S. Stones Sep 14 '10 at 7:14
Ah, mixed audiences. Tricky! :) – e.James Sep 14 '10 at 7:19

resource intensive, CPU intensive, Memory intensive

share|improve this answer
+ 'resource-hungry' – 5arx Feb 16 '11 at 1:07
I tend to use the word 'workload' since there were many occasions where non-technical person could not immediately realize, physically, what "resources" refers to. – Gapton Feb 28 '12 at 2:09

I guess you could say it takes up a lot of CPU time, memory, or both. Which is also more precise.

share|improve this answer
  • Puts a heavy workload on the CPU.

The wording is less technical so your general audience will understand, and to a technical audience they will understand it just as well, with not much room for misunderstanding.

share|improve this answer

You can say "A is computationally more costly than B."

share|improve this answer

protected by Will Hunting Apr 6 '12 at 10:57

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.