Oh yes, you're absolutely right. Now its 570 ms (just removed the 'doall').
On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:34:40 PM UTC+3, lpetit wrote: > > Hi, > With the new version without laziness, what exact test do you pass ? > > Is it still (do (time (doall (to-list tree))) :done) ? > > Because the doall adds an unfair re-traversal of the list, I think > > I see. Just removed the lazyness and got ~800ms. >> >> >> (defn generate-tree [[h & t :as coll]] >> (if (seq coll) >> (let [lr (generate-tree t)] [h lr lr]) >> nil)) >> >> (defn to-list [[v l r :as node]] >> (if-not (nil? node) >> (into >> (to-list l) >> (conj (to-list r) v)) >> [])) >> >> >> On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:20:50 PM UTC+3, tbc++ wrote: >>> >>> > Thanks. But I don't do any number crunching here - just a huge >>> structure >>> > creation in memory. I can't get why removing the 'lazy-seq' wrapper >>> from the >>> > second 'concat' argument make things 10x times slower. >>> >>> Lazy-seqs require the allocation of a LazySeq object. Due to the lazy >>> nature of this structure, we have to protect against multiple >>> evaluation. This means that certain methods have to be synchronized: >>> (https://github.com/clojure/**clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/** >>> clojure/lang/LazySeq.java<https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/LazySeq.java>). >>> >>> >>> All that makes it quite a bit slower than a simple Iterator. >>> >>> >>> Timothy >> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
