Thanks for running more timiggs. One last question: your timing tests were in a module, not the toplevel, right?
Robby On Thursday, June 24, 2010, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > On Jun 23, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> Do we really want to remove contracts from code just because they >> don't perform as well as hand-written checks? > > The code in question is about 15 lines; at least I expect such code to > run fast enough so I'll use it instead of writing my own 15 lines; the > difference is huge (2.5 factor). > > >> Also, did you try just changing the result contract from `void?' to >> `any/c'? > > Did you? > > > On Jun 24, Robby Findler wrote: >> A factor of 4 for removing those contracts and turning them into >> checks seems suspicious. They should not be that bad. Possibly Eli >> made other changes in there too? > > The 4x factor is overall, mostly due to turning it from a > double-linked list to single links. The contracts factor is still > very high: about 2.5x. Specifically: > > No contracts (current version): > cpu time: 10341 real time: 10344 gc time: 5156 > > Original contracts (and I removed the checks from the code): > cpu time: 26205 real time: 26207 gc time: 7382 > > Same contracts but using any/c: > cpu time: 25862 real time: 25865 gc time: 7338 > > Using queue/c instead of nonempty-queue/c (add a runtime check instead): > cpu time: 24978 real time: 24981 gc time: 7157 > > Using the struct predicate directly instead of flat-named-contract: > cpu time: 24838 real time: 24841 gc time: 7131 > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
