On Thursday 26 March 2009 15:39:12 Manlio Perillo wrote:
I also tried with Data.HashTable:
http://hpaste.org/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=2902
but memory usage is 703 MB, and execution time is about 4.5 times slower!
This is due to a perf bug in GHC's GC implementation that causes it to
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
For comparison:
Haskell hash table: 44s
Haskell map: 7s
F# hash table: 0.7s
Ouch! That's pretty insane.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
So how does F# IntMap version compares to Haskell's IntMap?
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
For comparison:
Haskell hash table: 44s
Haskell map: 7s
F# hash table:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 14:02:48 Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
For comparison:
Haskell hash table: 44s
Haskell map: 7s
F# hash table: 0.7s
So how does F# IntMap version compares to Haskell's IntMap?
Hi.
I have tried to compare performance of the g++ std::map versus the GHC
IntMap.
The test consists in adding 1000 elements to an empty map.
Haskell code is here:
http://hpaste.org/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=2899
C++ code is here:
http://hpaste.org/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=2900
On 2009 Mar 26, at 11:39, Manlio Perillo wrote:
The execution time and CPU usage is almost the same.
However the C++ version requires 305 MB, the GHC version 617 MB.
I wonder how much of that is due to lifting (i.e. laziness).
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell]
Hello Manlio,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:39:12 PM, you wrote:
The test consists in adding 1000 elements to an empty map.
+RTS -c -F1.1
then read about garbage collection
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH ha scritto:
On 2009 Mar 26, at 11:39, Manlio Perillo wrote:
The execution time and CPU usage is almost the same.
However the C++ version requires 305 MB, the GHC version 617 MB.
I wonder how much of that is due to lifting (i.e. laziness).
Bulat Ziganshin ha scritto:
Hello Manlio,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:39:12 PM, you wrote:
The test consists in adding 1000 elements to an empty map.
+RTS -c -F1.1
then read about garbage collection
It now requires 386 MB of memory, but is 4.7 times slower.
So, now memory required
Hello Manlio,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 8:17:03 PM, you wrote:
So, now memory required is about the same as the C++ version, but how
can I optimize memory usage without having to tweak the garbage collector?
C++ doesn't use GC so why you compare?
--
Best regards,
Bulat
manlio_perillo:
Bulat Ziganshin ha scritto:
Hello Manlio,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:39:12 PM, you wrote:
The test consists in adding 1000 elements to an empty map.
+RTS -c -F1.1
then read about garbage collection
It now requires 386 MB of memory, but is 4.7 times slower.
So,
Hello Don,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 8:26:18 PM, you wrote:
+RTS -c -F1.1
It now requires 386 MB of memory, but is 4.7 times slower.
So, now memory required is about the same as the C++ version, but how
can I optimize memory usage without having to tweak the garbage
collector?
You'll
12 matches
Mail list logo
