> What JVM 6 sub-version are you using?
$ java -version
java version "1.6.0_17"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_17-b04-248-10M3025)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.3-b01-101, mixed mode)
> Does it make any difference if you specify -XX:+DoEscapeAnalysis at
My clojure sta
But that does not exclude the fact that sorted-vec-2 is about %75
times faster than sort
On Jan 3, 11:26 pm, Gabi wrote:
> It turns out I run the client version.
> When running the server version (-server) the performance of sort is 4
> times better.
>
> On Jan 3, 11:20 pm, Gabi wrote:
>
> > "1.
It turns out I run the client version.
When running the server version (-server) the performance of sort is 4
times better.
On Jan 3, 11:20 pm, Gabi wrote:
> "1.6.0_17" .It doesn't support this flag:
> Unrecognized VM option '+DoEscapeAnalysis'
>
> On Jan 3, 11:04 pm, Aaron Cohen wrote:
>
> > W
"1.6.0_17" .It doesn't support this flag:
Unrecognized VM option '+DoEscapeAnalysis'
On Jan 3, 11:04 pm, Aaron Cohen wrote:
> What JVM 6 sub-version are you using?
>
> Does it make any difference if you specify -XX:+DoEscapeAnalysis at
> the command line? Various JVM 6 sub-versions enable and dis
What JVM 6 sub-version are you using?
Does it make any difference if you specify -XX:+DoEscapeAnalysis at
the command line? Various JVM 6 sub-versions enable and disable it by
default and it can make a pretty hefty difference if it isn't enabled.
-- Aaron
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Gabi
I've double checked on my machine (Vista. JVM 6. Clojure 1.1.0).
Clojure's sort is is 4 to 5 times slower than sorted-vec2
Maybe somebody with a Vista machine double check this?
On Jan 3, 5:51 pm, ianp wrote:
> > More findings: The reason that the Clojure's original sort is 8 times
> > slower
> More findings: The reason that the Clojure's original sort is 8 times slower
I don’t see that on my machine. I’m running 1.1.0-master-SNAPSHOT with
Apple’s Java 6 VM in case that has anything to do with it, but here's
what I get (after running the tests several times to warm up hotspot):
user=
> BTW we have state here (the native Java array). Is it thread safe ?
Well, the state doesn’t escape the function so it’s similar to
transients in that regard (although without the guarantees that
transients provide, but I think that for a fn this short it’s OK).
--
You received this message bec
Hi,
Am 03.01.2010 um 09:29 schrieb Gabi:
> BTW we have state here (the native Java array). Is it thread safe ?
>
>> (defn sorted-vec
>> [coll]
>> (let [arr (into-array coll)]
>> (java.util.Array/sort arr)
>> (vec arr)))
Since the array is not accessible from outside the function I w
More findings: The reason that the Clojure's original sort is 8 times
slower than sorted-vec2 is only because Clojure uses its own
comparator by default, instead of using Java's default comparator.
Otherwise it's same performance.
;Modified clojure.core.clj sort
(defn sort2
"Returns a sorted s
I investigated a little bit more. Seems that (into-array) is slows
things down because it seqs (un-necessarily?) that vector before
passing to clojure.lang.RT/seqToTypedArray.
I almost doubled the speed of sorted-vec by using clojure.lang.RT/
toArray:
(defn sorted-vec2
[coll]
(let [arr (cloju
The sorted-vec is ~4 times faster than Clojure's sort (on my humble
old machine):
user=> (def v (vec (take 1 (repeatedly #(rand-int 10)
#'user/v
user=> (time(dotimes [_ 1000] (sort v)))
"Elapsed time: 23945.682336 msecs"
nil
user=> (time(dotimes [_ 1000] (sorted-vec v)))
"Elapsed time:
Hi,
Am 02.01.2010 um 20:17 schrieb ianp:
>> A bit uglier, but ought to be quite fast.
>
> Doesn't need to be that ugly, this looks OK to me at least:
>
> (defn sorted-vec [coll]
> (doto (into-array coll)
>(java.util.Arrays/sort)
>(vec)))
>
> It'd also be possible to generalise the ret
> A bit uglier, but ought to be quite fast.
Doesn't need to be that ugly, this looks OK to me at least:
(defn sorted-vec [coll]
(doto (into-array coll)
(java.util.Arrays/sort)
(vec)))
It'd also be possible to generalise the return type by passing in a fn
to apply to the sorted array.
> A bit uglier, but ought to be quite fast.
It doesn't need to be that ugly:
(defn sorted-vec [coll]
(doto (into-array coll)
(java.util.Arrays/sort)
(vec)))
looks OK to me at least.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Gabi wrote:
>
> I am asking because I need random access (nth ..) to huge sorted
> vectors - which are now actually huge sequences after the sort, with
> horrible O(n) random access time
Clojure's 'sort' actually copies your input collection into an
array, and then
You vec approach is the current solution. I'm 95% sure you'll have to
pay the O(n) once, but you'll be good to go after that.
Sean
On Jan 1, 7:19 pm, Gabi wrote:
> What is the preferred way getting a vector back from sequence, after a
> sequence producing operation (like sort)? Does using (vec.
What is the preferred way getting a vector back from sequence, after a
sequence producing operation (like sort)? Does using (vec..) on a
sequence that was a vector is costly?
One (bad?) possibility is creating a new vector out of sequence:
(vec (sort [1 2 3 4 5 6]))
I am asking because I nee
18 matches
Mail list logo
