On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:56 AM Brian Adkins <br...@lojic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 4:50:44 AM UTC-4, Alex Harsanyi wrote: >> >> >> I am trying to speed up an algorithm using futures, but I am getting some >> unexpected results (and no real speed improvements), and I was wondering if >> someone more experienced could have a look a the code and tell me what am I >> doing wrong. >> [...] >> > > I would *love* to be proven wrong on this, but I think it's rare to be > able to get decent parallelization in practice using futures. You may have > better results using places, but it will depend on how the amount of > processing for a unit compares to the overhead of communicating with the > places i.e. you may get better results with 2 places than with 8 due to > place communication overhead. In your case, if it's easy for the places to > input their own sets of parameters, then the place overhead may be small > since I think each place would simply need to communicate its best value. > > > While this may be true, it is also the case that the design of futures is such that incremental work on the primitives turns into incremental ability to parallelize programs. So while it is likely to be more work today, it may also be the case that people putting effort in to help their own programs will help us turn the corner here. Perhaps this is a place where an interested contributor can help us out a lot! Robby -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOPnzjMdTEOU%2BdO34B8VAfXzORSVHfXYx6tV-8DVGZ7oXw%40mail.gmail.com.
