Here's a start: https://gist.github.com/samth/7431213
This is a Typed Racket version of your program, converted to use flvectors instead of f64vectors. I haven't taken a look at the code for your random number generator yet, but you could try doing the timing by creating a large array of random numbers ahead of time, and then timing the loop just referencing into that array. Sam On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:52 AM, William Cushing <william.cush...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm in the process of benchmarking various systems for their ability to > handle the inner loop of compilations of MCMC from a higher level > probabilistic modeling language (BLOG). > > Attached are examples of the kind of output (instantiations of MCMC) we'd > like to be able to generate given the tried-and-true Bayes Net linking the > probabilities of earthquake, burglary, john calling, and mary calling. > Classic AI fare. > > Predictably, C is fastest. But Stalin and SBCL also put in a very fine > showing. > > For 50,000,000 iterations on my machine, I get the following semi-serious, > semi-bogus timings for a random assortment of systems (petite chez just for > fun): > > 1 SBCL 2.20 > 2 Bigloo 5.25 > 3 Chicken 11.49 > 4 Stalin 2.15 > 5 Racket 16.67 > 6 Petite-Chez 30.42 > 7 GCC 0.82 > 8 Clang 0.92 > > There is much about the comparison that isn't fair. Chiefly, this is > primarily a test of speed of random number generation, but I haven't > controlled for the algorithm being used to generate random numbers. Stalin > may very well be using GLIBC random number generation, for example. I know > SBCL uses MT; in fact, the SBCL experts responded to my little encoding by > halving the shown runtime figure via dynamically linking in a new and > improved (SIMD-aware) implementation of MT. Which is quite impressive, as > that puts it within 30% of my C version...and my C version is "totally > cheating" by employing a simple little LCPRNG. > > Porting the same generator to Racket in the obvious way more than triples > its running time. (!) > (Is it the global var? Is the conversion to double being compiled as a real > division?) > > In any case, even just sticking with Racket's default PRNG, it seems the > performance of a simple number crunching loop leaves something to be > desired. I have done what I can to try and shave off time here and there. > Using unsafe ops, and threading most of the state through the parameters of > a tail-recursive loop (thus avoiding set!), I managed to shave off 3 seconds > from my original encoding (so about 15%), which isn't too shabby. Of > course, for even less effort, Stalin is already 800% times faster. > > I couldn't get typed/racket to type check, and /no-check doesn't seem to > help performance at all (not surprising). I suspect that getting > typed/racket to be able to process this file might help substantially...but > I don't really understand its type theory enough to help it figure this > benchmark out. > > I though Racket experts might have some suggestions for how to convince > Racket to run a simple number crunching loop without quite so much in the > way of constant-factor slowdown. > > -Will > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
