>From what I can see GO is purely compiled down to object code and linked into >static binaries. IMHO Perl, as an interpreted language, is doing *super* to >be *only* twice the runtime of Go! Maybe others have a better handle on >this.
On March 8, 2014 3:26:31 PM EST, Gyepi SAM <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 02:12:50PM -0500, David Larochelle wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Gyepi SAM <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >> > For fun, I wrote a version in Go and it's twice as fast as the perl >> > version. I imagine a C version would be faster yet, but I get paid >for that >> > kind of fun. I'd be happy to send you the Go version if you're >interested. >> >> >> >> I'm curious how you account for disk caches when your bench marking. >I >> fully expect that the CPU version of the code will be faster in GO >than >> Perl. But I wonder how much this matters if the file isn't already in >the >> disk cache. >> >> An interesting test would be to run the GO version first on a file >that's >> you can be sure is not in the disk cache, then to run the Perl >version on >> that file. I.e. let Perl benefit from the disk cache and see if GO is >still >> faster. > >I have an SSD drive on my linux laptop so disk caching plays less of a >role in >my tests. I clear the cache with: > > echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > >I repeated the tests after clearing the disk cache each time and also >ran each >test multiple times without clearing cache. The cached versions are a >few >seconds faster, but the overall results are the same; the Go version is >about twice as fast. > >-Gyepi > >_______________________________________________ >Boston-pm mailing list >[email protected] >http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
