On Jul 2, 7:41 pm, Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0400
> It depends on what you're benchmarking. If the loop time ... is
> on the order of the same size as the standard deviation, then it can
> fool you into falsely concluding that there's no statistically
> significant differenc
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0400
Greg wrote:
> I don't see how the loop is relevant here, at least if the same benchmarking
> function is used for all the benchmarks you're doing, it should make a
> difference then since the overhead is the same.
It depends on what you're benchmarking. If the
On Jul 2, 3:44 am, Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
> j-g-faustus wrote:
> > Criterium, a benchmarking library for Clojure, seems pretty good:
>
> The author responded here.
>
I noticed, my reply was sent an hour earlier. I'm still on moderation,
so my mails are 1-12 h
0 (PDT)
> j-g-faustus wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:51 pm, Peter Schuller wrote:
>>>> Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
>>>> benchmarking clojure code?
>> Criterium, a benchmarking library for Clojure, seems pretty good:
>&
> WIth regards to benchmarking that accurately discounts loop overhead;
> it seems to me that even if you apply elaborate logic, if the thing
> you're benchmarking is so small that looping overhead becomes
> significant, you risk making the benchmark subject to subtle
> variations anyway,
Oops, so
WIth regards to benchmarking that accurately discounts loop overhead;
it seems to me that even if you apply elaborate logic, if the thing
you're benchmarking is so small that looping overhead becomes
significant, you risk making the benchmark subject to subtle
variations anyway,
--
/ Peter Schulle
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:39:16 -0400
Aaron Cohen wrote:
> > If nothing else adding code to measure the empty loop and punting if
> > the difference between that and the code loop is statistically
> > insignificant would seem like a good idea.
> It's actually notoriously hard to time the "empty loop"
>
>
> If nothing else adding code to measure the empty loop and punting if
> the difference between that and the code loop is statistically
> insignificant would seem like a good idea.
>
>
It's actually notoriously hard to time the "empty loop" on the JVM. Once
you've iterated a few thousand times,
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:51:28 -0400, Mike Meyer
wrote:
This looks nice, but doesn't work with 1.1 :-(. Do you know the last
commit that did?
I'm not sure that I would be too confident on the correctness of any
version that ran on 1.1.
Better yet, can I talk you into posting a 1.1 jar fi
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
j-g-faustus wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:51 pm, Peter Schuller wrote:
> > > Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
> > > benchmarking clojure code?
> Criterium, a benchmarking library for Clojure, s
On Jul 1, 7:51 pm, Peter Schuller wrote:
> > Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
> > benchmarking clojure code?
Criterium, a benchmarking library for Clojure, seems pretty good:
http://github.com/hugoduncan/criterium
Based on ideas in this a
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:21:03 -0400
"Hugo Duncan" wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:44:25 -0400, Mike Meyer
> wrote:
>
> > Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
> > benchmarking clojure code?
>
> I wrote a benchmarkin
On Jul 1, 2010, at 21:21 , Hugo Duncan wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:44:25 -0400, Mike Meyer
> wrote:
>
>> Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
>> benchmarking clojure code?
>
> I wrote a benchmarking lib at http://github.com/hu
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:44:25 -0400, Mike Meyer
wrote:
Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
benchmarking clojure code?
I wrote a benchmarking lib at http://github.com/hugoduncan/criterium
The references in the README are worth checking.
You might also
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:51:06 +0200
Peter Schuller wrote:
> > Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
> > benchmarking clojure code?
>
> No, but last time I thought about this I figured a very simple
> (benchmark ...) would simply:
>
> *
> Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
> benchmarking clojure code?
No, but last time I thought about this I figured a very simple
(benchmark ...) would simply:
* Iterate with exponentially higher repeat counts until total runtime
reaches >= 1 se
p that calculates overhead takes more
time than the loop that actually runs the code, no matter how trivial
the code is!
Is anyone using anything more sophisticated than clojure.core/time for
benchmarking clojure code?
http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Pe
17 matches
Mail list logo
