On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Yakovlev Roman wrote:
> what a mess if it is a function it's huuge did you try split it to useful
> chunks ? it's just unreadable and that's why you cann't spot anything i
> guess..
>
I can't split it without ending up with boxing at the function call
boundaries,
I thought 'definline' addresses exactly that...cases where one might
want to pull out small pieces of first class functionality without
sacrificing performance and without macros (which are not
first-class)...am I mistaken?
Jim
ps: the only similarly big function that I've ever written (still
Having worked on Clojure benchmarks on the Computer Language Benchmarks Game
web site, that is sometimes the kind of Clojure code one needs to write if you
want it to be as fast as it can be.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=clojure
Also, splitting it out into smaller
what a mess if it is a function it's huuge did you try split it to useful
chunks ? it's just unreadable and that's why you cann't spot anything i
guess..
пятница, 9 ноября 2012 г., 0:48:20 UTC+4 пользователь Cedric Greevey
написал:
>
> I have the following code to perform a complicated image co
I haven't determined exactly why that particular code is slow for you, but I
have looked at it for a few minutes and have some suggestions:
1. In Clojure 1.3 and later, the default integer type for primitive arithmetic
is long, not int. Declaring things int means that they are really longs in t
So 100 million (rand) calls take 20 seconds. From temporarily changing
^BufferedImage chunk (chunk-cache chunk-num) to ^BufferedImage chunk nil, I
determined that 100 million of the *combination* of the cache lookup (with
no misses) and the .getRGB call took 30. That still leaves just over two
minu
(rand) is expensive -- removing the two (rand)s knocks about 40 seconds off
it, nearly 1/5 the total time. I'll try replacing them with lookup from a
precalculated grid of randoms -- long-range correlations shouldn't matter
here.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Cedric Greevey wrote:
> On Thu,
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Cedric Greevey wrote:
> I have the following code to perform a complicated image convolution. It
> takes 10-15 seconds with output dimensions 256x256 and samples 6. No
> reflection warnings, and using unchecked math doesn't speed it up any. I've
> tried to ensure i
