So, there are exactly two measurements there: matrix multiplication and vector addition for dimension 100 (which is quite small and should favor vectorz). Here are the results on my machine:
Matrix multiplications are given at the neanderthal web site at http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/benchmarks.html in much more details than that, so I won't repeat that here. Vector addition according to criterium: 124ns vectorz vs 78ns neanderthal on my i7 4790k Mind you that the project you pointed uses rather old library versions. I updated them to the latest versions. Also, the code does not run for both old and new versions properly (it complains about :clatrix) so I had to evaluate it manually in the repl. I wonder why you complained that I didn't show more benchmark data about my claims when I had shown much more (and relevant) data than it is available for core.matrix, but I would use the opportunity to appeal to core.matrix community to improve that. On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 8:13:29 PM UTC+2, Christopher Small wrote: > > For benchmarking, there's this: > https://github.com/mikera/core.matrix.benchmark. It's pretty simple > though. It would be nice to see something more robust and composable, and > with nicer output options. I'll put a little bit of time into that now, but > again, a bit busy to do as much as I'd like here :-) > > Chris > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Dragan Djuric <drag...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >>> As for performance benchmarks, I have to echo Mike that it seemed >>> strange to me that you were claiming you were faster on ALL benchmarks when >>> I'd only seen data on one. Would you mind sharing your full benchmarking >>> analyses? >>> >> >> I think this might be a very important issue, and I am glad that you >> raised it. Has anyone shared any core.matrix (or, to be precise, >> core.matrix) benchmark data? I know about Java benchmark code project that >> include vectorz, but I think it would help core.matrix users to see the >> actual numbers. One main thing vectorz (and core.matrix) is claiming is >> that it is *fast*. Mike seemed a bit (pleasantly) surprised when I shared >> my results for vectorz mmul... >> >> So, my proposal would be that you (or anyone else able and willing) >> create a simple Clojure project that simply lists typical core.matrix use >> cases, or just the core procedures in core.matrix code that you want to >> measure and that you are interested to see Neanderthal doing. Ready >> criterium infrastructure is cool, but I'm not even ask for that if you do >> not have time. Just a setup with matrix objects and core.matrix function >> calls that you want measured. Share your numbers and that project on Github >> and I will contribute comparative code for Neanderthal benchmarks, and >> results for both codes run on my machine. Of course, that would be micro >> benchmarks, but useful anyway for you, one Neanderthal user (me :) and for >> all core.matrix users. >> >> You interested? >> >> With all that out of the way... I'm glad that you're willing to play ball >>> here with the core.matrix community, and thank you for what I think has >>> been a very productive discussion. I think we all went from talking _past_ >>> each other, to understanding what the issues are and can now hopefully >>> start moving forward and making things happen. While I think we'd all love >>> to have you (Dragan) personally working on the core.matrix implementations, >>> I agree with Mars0i that just having you agree to work-with/advise others >>> who would do the actual work is great. I'd personally love to take that on >>> myself, but I already have about a half dozen side projects I'm working on >>> which I barely have time for. Oh, and a four month old baby :scream:! So if >>> there's anyone else who's willing, I may leave it to them :-) >>> >> >> I'm also glad we understand each other better now :) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/dFPOOw8pSGI/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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.
