Hmmm, thx for the experiment. To clarify, I assumed that the normal behavior would have been closer to the 4.0 time, but I don't have anything earlier. The 0.3 was just updated using apt-get on Ubuntu 14.04 (VM running on windows). 0.4 was of course cloned and compiled. Just scraped and re-installed 0.3 with apt-get, and I still see the same behavior. (This time remembering to discard initial compile time)
julia> @time begin a = rand(5000,5000); b = rand(5000); x =a\b end; elapsed time: 30.509950844 seconds (400100776 bytes allocated, 0.11% gc time) It's mystery to me. If I learn anything more, will let you know. Thanks again. Don On Friday, August 22, 2014 9:54:22 PM UTC-7, John Myles White wrote: > > I don’t see this behavior at all on my system. > > After discarding an intial compilation step, here’s what I get: > > 0.3 — elapsed time: 3.013803287 seconds (400120776 bytes allocated, 1.77% > gc time) > 0.4 — elapsed time: 2.920384195 seconds (400120776 bytes allocated, 1.89% > gc time) > > Also to clarify: do you mean to refer to 0.3 as a regression relative 0.4? > > — John > > On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:50 PM, Don MacMillen <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > Is anyone else seeing the following? If not, what could I have done to > my env to trigger it? > > > > Thx. > > > > julia> VERSION > > v"0.3.0" > > > > julia> @time begin a = rand(5000,5000); b = rand(5000); x =a\b end; > > elapsed time: 31.413347385 seconds (440084348 bytes allocated, 0.12% gc > time) > > > > julia> > > > > ---------------- > > > > julia> VERSION > > v"0.4.0-dev+308" > > > > julia> @time begin a = rand(5000,5000); b = rand(5000); x =a\b end; > > elapsed time: 1.686715561 seconds (431769824 bytes allocated, 0.87% gc > time) > > > > julia> > > > >
