On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:17 AM, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 07:50:32PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:30:12 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: >> > I want to see benchmarks too, but I thought I would justify why we >> > expect this to be no slower than the previous code...Everything below >> > is stuff that we discussed during the Sprint. >> >> Well, attached is a second set of comparative timing tests, sorry, only >> run once and with no nice output yet. Hopefully you can use a graphical >> diff tool to do side by side comparison. >> >> A nice little summariser script, maybe using the Haskell tabular >> library might be handy > > Unless you've named them wrong, it looks like salvo-9b has on the an effect > of slowing darcs down, when it has any significant effect. That doesn't > sound like a good optimization... It'd also be good to test against > pre-salvo-8 with or without bytestring.
We ran 1 test in each scenario. That's hardly telling. The 10% to 20% you cite could easily just be noise, the truth is we can't know without better/more data. The fact that we have so little data coupled with it being so close could equally be used to argue that the performance has not changed. Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
