>There was a fair bit of variability but it was no worse than
>twice as slow and often close to par.

Um ... are we looking at the same results?  Because I would classify
the results as "on average, more than twice as worse", and I could NOT
in any universe say "often close to par" (I am going by the results that
were posted to this mailing list).  And that was only when running
"mhparam version", because "scan" SEGV'd.  Even your results fell squarely
into "twice as bad".  In:


you said:

>And the programs I tried worked fine. Running best scan time
>for 200K messages, scan+gc takes 13.5 seconds while the
>regular scan 7.4 seconds.

To me a performance penalty of 50% is not worth it, but I'd be willing
to hear from others.



Reply via email to