Hey miquel, didn't we loose colors somehow?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Miquel Torres <[email protected]> wrote: >> @Maciej: it doesn't make a lot of sense. Looking at this graph: >> http://speed.pypy.org/comparison/?exe=2%2B35,4%2B35,1%2B172,3%2B172&ben=11,14,15&env=1&hor=false&bas=none&chart=normal+bars >> >> slowspitfire is much faster than the other two. Is that because it >> performs more iterations? > > I think it's apples to oranges (they have different table sizes and > different number of iterations) > >> >> Also, how come pypy-c-jit is faster than cpython or psyco precisely in >> cstringio, where performance should be dependent on cstringIO and thus >> be more similar across interpreters? > > because having a list of small strings means you have a large (old) > object referencing a lot of young objects, hence GC cost. It's not the > case with cstringio where you have a single chunk of memory which does > not contain GC pointers. > >> >> >> 2010/12/13 Leonardo Santagada <[email protected]>: >>> why not have only 2 versions, both with the same size table and name >>> one spitfire_cstringio and the other spitfire_strjoin? I think it >>> would make things clearer. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> spitfires are confusing. >>>> >>>> slowspitfire and spitfire use ''.join(list-of-strings) where >>>> spitfire_cstringio uses cStringIO instead. >>>> >>>> spitfire and spitfire_cstringio use smaller table to render (100x100 I >>>> think) which was the default on original benchmarks >>>> >>>> slowspitfire uses 1000x1000 (which is why it used to be slower than >>>> spitfire) and was chosen by US guys to let the JIT warm up. We should >>>> remove _slow these days. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Miquel Torres <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> sorry, I meant the opposite. To recap, according to >>>>> http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/Benchmarks, >>>>> spitfire: psyco >>>>> slowspitfire: pure python >>>>> >>>>> in addition we have spitfire_cstringio, which uses a c module (so it >>>>> is even faster). >>>>> >>>>> what is vanilla spitfire in our case? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2010/12/13 Miquel Torres <[email protected]>: >>>>>> @Carl Friedrich & exarkun: thanks, I've added those. >>>>>> >>>>>> only spectral-norm, slowspitfire and ai to go. >>>>>> >>>>>> slowspitfire is described at the Unladen page as using psyco, but it >>>>>> doesn't make sense in our case? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2010/12/13 <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> On 08:20 am, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks all for the input. >>>>>>>> I've compiled a list based on your mails, the Unladen benchmarks page >>>>>>>> (http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/Benchmarks), and the >>>>>>>> alioth descriptions. Here is an extract of the current speed.pypy.org >>>>>>>> admin: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> twisted_iteration >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Iterates a Twisted reactor as quickly as possible without doing any >>>>>>> work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> twisted_names >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Runs a DNS server with Twisted Names and then issues requests to it over >>>>>>> loopback UDP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> twisted_pb >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Runs a Perspective Broker server with a no-op method and invokes that >>>>>>> method >>>>>>> over loopback TCP with some strings, dictionaries, and tuples as >>>>>>> arguments. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Leonardo Santagada >>> >> > _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
