core.matrix claims that it is fast on its project page (with which I agree in some cases). I expected from that, and from the last couple of your posts in this discussion, that there are some concrete numbers to show, which I can't find.
My claim to win "ALL benchmarks" (excluding maybe tiny objects) came only as a response to mike's remarks that I have only proven that neanderthal is faster for dgemm etc. OK, maybe the point is that other libraries do not care that much about speed, or that current speed is enough, or whatever, and I am ok with that. I would just like it to be explicitly said, so I do not lose time arguing about what is not important. Or it would be nice to see some numbers shown to draw at least rough picture of what can be expected. I am glad if my raising this issue would improve the situation, but I do not insist... On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:16:15 PM UTC+2, Christopher Small wrote: > > Well, we also weren't claiming to win "ALL benchmarks" compared to > anything :-) > > But your point is well taken, better benchmarking should be pretty > valuable to the community moving forward. > > Chris > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Dragan Djuric <drag...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> 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> >>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> 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. >>>> 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 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.
