I ported Mikera's benchmark to Clojure using my patch
https://gist.github.com/cgrand/6595939
The ratio between time-float and time-double (0.632) is very similar to the
ratio between timeFloat and timeDouble Mikera reported (0.618)


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Christophe Grand <christo...@cgrand.net>wrote:

> Here is the mundane patch I described earlier:
> https://github.com/cgrand/clojure/commit/4c202ad9757ce47ac9e669847c0e5bf68785e2d6
>
> It adds four functions (add-, multiply-, divide- and subtract-float),
> backs them with their corresponding bytecodes and enhance the conversion
> emitted when going from long/int to double/float.
>
> Please give it a try.
>
> It doesn't help with functions taking primitive but it's another problem.
>
> Christophe
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, James Reeves <ja...@booleanknot.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 September 2013 09:03, Mikera <mike.r.anderson...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Obviously this is just a microbenchmark, but it fits my general
>>> experience that floats are a reasonable bit faster than doubles, typically
>>> 20-100% (doubles are closer when it is pure number crunching since 64-bit
>>> CPUs are actually pretty good at doubles, floats have a bigger advantage
>>> when you are manipulating a lot of data points and hence memory bandwidth
>>> matters more)
>>>
>>> Code here for those interested:
>>> src/test/java/mikera/vectorz/performance/FloatVsDoubleBenchmark.java
>>>
>>
>> That's a pretty interesting result. I ran some tests of my own, based on
>> your code, as I wondered whether or not the time to instantiate the array
>> of doubles was biasing the test. My goal was to see whether or not I'd get
>> a similar result running an array of floats through a method that processed
>> doubles. (See: https://gist.github.com/weavejester/6583367)
>>
>> It turns out that I get a similar result. Passing floats to a method that
>> takes doubles slows things down by a similar amount, unless I've somehow
>> botched up the test. Considering that converting between single and double
>> precision should be pretty cheap on the CPU, I'm surprised at the
>> difference.
>>
>> This somewhat changes my view on things. It doesn't affect me in
>> practice, but I can see how someone might be frustrated by having to drop
>> down to Java to achieve performance for floating point calculations.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> On Clojure http://clj-me.cgrand.net/
> Clojure Programming http://clojurebook.com
> Training, Consulting & Contracting http://lambdanext.eu/
>



-- 
On Clojure http://clj-me.cgrand.net/
Clojure Programming http://clojurebook.com
Training, Consulting & Contracting http://lambdanext.eu/

-- 
-- 
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
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to