I have "debugging & profiling" on. Disable debugging. Now have all zeroes :-) cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0
I will check with optimization. If find something strange, I'll write. Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:58:16 +0100 от Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu>: >Hm... I'm not able to get anything like the results you're reporting. >When I run the enclosed program via `racket` on the command line, I get > > cpu time: 3 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 3 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 2 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 3 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 5 real time: 5 gc time: 3 > cpu time: 2 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 2 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 2 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 4 real time: 4 gc time: 1 > >Running in DrRacket gives messier results, such as > > cpu time: 17 real time: 10 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 19 real time: 22 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 7 real time: 7 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 15 real time: 8 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 14 real time: 10 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 10 real time: 10 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 7 real time: 6 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 7 real time: 7 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 23 real time: 29 gc time: 15 > >or > > cpu time: 6 real time: 6 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 5 real time: 4 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 58 real time: 57 gc time: 49 > cpu time: 6 real time: 5 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 5 real time: 4 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 6 real time: 6 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 5 real time: 5 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 5 real time: 4 gc time: 0 > cpu time: 15 real time: 16 gc time: 9 > >I'm using v6.0.1.12 on Mac OS X 64-bit on a MacBook Pro. Version 6.0.1 >on the same machine seems to produce the same sorts of results. > >Any idea what might be different? > >At Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:44:41 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote: >> (define data (for/list ([x 100000]) x)) >> >> (time (begin0 (void) (run2 data))) >> (time (begin0 (void) (run1 data))) >> >> 3 times run1, then 3 times run2, then again 3 times run1. >> >> Results are stable. >> >> Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:28:10 +0100 от Matthew Flatt < mfl...@cs.utah.edu >: >> >I'd expect them to run nearly the same due to inlining and constant >> >propagation. If I save your program to "ex.rkt" and use >> > >> > raco make ex.rkt >> > raco decompile ex.rkt >> > >> >the the output looks almost the same for both functions. >> > >> >There's a lot of allocation in these programs, of course, and that's >> >going to make benchmarking relatively tricky. How are you timing the >> >functions, and does it matter whether you `run1` or `run2` first? >> > >> >At Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:16:25 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote: >> >> Strange. >> >> >> >> #lang racket >> >> (define (test1 x y) >> >> (if x >> >> (+ y 1) >> >> (- y 1))) >> >> (define (test2 x) >> >> (if x >> >> (λ (y) (+ y 1)) >> >> (λ (y) (- y 1)))) >> >> (define (run1 data) >> >> (map (λ (x) (test1 #t x)) data)) >> >> (define (run2 data) >> >> (map (λ (x) ((test2 #t) x)) data)) I expect, that run2 should be >> >> faster, >> >> because (test2 #t) returns const (lambda (y) (+ y 1)) and shouldn't be >> checked >> >> on every iteration. >> >> >> >> But in reality (time ...) gives 219 for run1 and 212 for run2. run2 is >> >> 1.5 >> >> times slower! >> >> >> >> Why so? >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Roman Klochkov____________________ >> >> Racket Users list: >> >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >> -- >> Roman Klochkov >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users -- Roman Klochkov
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
