Steven--Oops, yeah, I am calling Java methods that are probably using hashCode(), and maybe equals(). Interesting.
Is the idea that records are hashed on the values in their fields, while deftype object are just hashed a pointer (or whatever identical? uses)--something like that? So if you want fast hashing by raw identity, you should not use defrecord? On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:10:04 PM UTC-5, Steven Yi wrote: > > I'm not aware of anything that would lead to significant differences in > regards to the function call. As a test, I defined an interface and used > deftype and defrecord, then used no.disassemble[1] to inspect the results, > using the following commands: > > user=> (use 'no.disassemble) > > user=> (definterface P (testfn [])) > > user=> (defrecord R1 [x y] P (testfn [this] (reset! x (inc @y)) (reset! y > (inc @x)))) > > user=> (deftype R2 [x y] P (testfn [this] (reset! x (inc @y)) (reset! y > (inc @x)))) > > user=> (println (disassemble R1)) > > user=> (println (disassemble R2)) > Looking at the bytecode for the testfn() function for both R1 and R2, > they're pretty much identical (same opcodes). > > My hunch is that your performance issues may lie elsewhere. > > Just a random guess, are you by chance doing anything with the record/type > that would require calling the equals() or hashCode() functions? defrecord > would be doing a bit more work there than deftype, which gets the default > equals/hashcode. > > Hope that helps! > steven > > > [1] - https://github.com/gtrak/no.disassemble/ > > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:08:13 PM UTC-4, Mars0i wrote: >> >> I have an application using Java interop, in which I can define a class >> using either deftype or defrecord. It has one field, containing an atom >> containing a double, and a few methods. One of the methods is specified by >> an interface defined in Java, and that method is called from Java. This >> method is called many times in an inner loop. I don't use any of the extra >> functionality provided by defrecord, but in otheri, similar programs, I >> will. >> >> When I use defrecord, the speed of the program is about 25% of its speed >> when I use deftype. This is a one-line change. I'm testing speed simply >> by running the program for a long time, and timing it. I've done this test >> repeatedly, so there's no reason to think the differences have to do with >> other processes running on my machines. >> >> When I benchmark simple uses of defrecord and deftype using criterium, >> they're about the same speed. >> >> Is there any obvious reason to think that there are situations--e.g. >> method calls from Java--in which deftype would be expected to be >> significantly faster than defrecord? >> >> I can construct a minimal example based on my program and post it here, >> but I thought I'd check first whether there is something obvious that I >> don't get. >> >> [The test I did using defrecord is below. I also replaced 'defrecord' >> with 'deftype' and did the same test. I would think that the JIT compiler >> wouldn't be smart enough to optimize away whatever differs between >> defrecord and deftype, but maybe I'm wrong about that. >> >> (defrecord R [x y] >> P >> (incx2y [this] (reset! x (inc @y))) >> (decy2x [this] (reset! y (dec @x)))) >> >> (def r (R. (atom 2) (atom 1))) >> >> (bench (def _ (dotimes [_ 50000000] (incx2y r) (decy2x r) r))) >> ] >> >> -- 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/d/optout.
