FWIW, big GCs are usually multiple seconds. But minor collections are
in that neighborhood and those happen more randomly when running
inside DrRacket.
Robby
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
>
>> I've had good succ
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> I've had good success running DrRacket and selecting "No debugging or
> profiling" and deselecting "Preserve stacktrace" in the Language dialog.
> Most of the time, I get performance similar to command-line Racket. I think
> the only signific
On 12/11/2012 08:03 AM, daniel rupis wrote:
I should say that I like racket, but I find macros in racket rather difficult.
I can use macros in common-lisp but I still can't use racket macros. (I am
trying to say that perhaps macros in racket are something difficult to grasp).
Yeah, dealing wi
On 12/11/2012 09:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, daniel rupis
I am using racket from the console, not using DrRacket. I just copy the
code
with control-c and paste with control-v then wait a seconds for the definitions
to be loaded in memory and then run
At Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:43:25 + (UTC),
daniel rupis wrote:
> Anyway, my point was that I was expecting something more from typed racket.
> Since typed racket use types (like declaring type in sbcl) I was expected
> better
> perfomance, that's all.
There's a big difference between Typed Racket
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, daniel rupis
wrote:
> Sam Tobin-Hochstadt writes:
>
>>
>> While you're certainly right about DrRacket introducing noise in
>> performance measurement, I don't think you need to generate an
>> executable to eliminate that overhead. Simply running `racket` from
>>
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt writes:
>
> While you're certainly right about DrRacket introducing noise in
> performance measurement, I don't think you need to generate an
> executable to eliminate that overhead. Simply running `racket` from
> the command line on a file in a module ought to be sufficient
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> This looks like you are testing from inside DrRacket. As I already
>> wrote you should generate an executable and measure that.
>>
>> If you run the test from inside DrRacket, you are measuring DrRacket
>> overhead, which is far from
Sorry my mistake , it is 6.8 seconds. :) .
Veer
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM, daniel rupis
wrote:
> Veer Singh writes:
>
>>
>> I am getting 6.8 ms without modifying the code.
>> When I change modulo to remainder I get 6.3 ms consistently.
>
>
> I think you mean 6.8 seconds not milliseconds
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Pierpaolo Bernardi
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM, daniel rupis
> wrote:
>> Pierpaolo Bernardi writes:
>
>>> Remember to generate an executable, to obtain the maximum speed.
>
>
>> Welcome to Racket v5.3.1.
>>
>>
>> (define (test)
>> (time (displayln
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> If you run the test from inside DrRacket, you are measuring DrRacket
> overhead, which is far from negligible.
As an example, the test I just sent, with the limit changed to 60999,
on my machine runs in 20083 ms from inside DrRacket, w
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM, daniel rupis
wrote:
> Pierpaolo Bernardi writes:
>> Remember to generate an executable, to obtain the maximum speed.
> Welcome to Racket v5.3.1.
>
>
> (define (test)
> (time (displayln (total-primes 60999> > > >
>> (test)
> 6145
> cpu time: 39170 real tim
Veer Singh writes:
>
> I am getting 6.8 ms without modifying the code.
> When I change modulo to remainder I get 6.3 ms consistently.
I think you mean 6.8 seconds not milliseconds.
Try with the bigger n to remove transient behaviour.
Racket Users list:
http://lists
Pierpaolo Bernardi writes:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:03 PM, daniel rupis
> wrote:
> >
> > I was comparing some code in Qi with that of sbcl, I posted a question in
> > comp.lang.lisp asking for a way to improve the perfomance, WJ gave a typed
> > racket version that was slower than sbcl an
I am getting 6.8 ms without modifying the code.
When I change modulo to remainder I get 6.3 ms consistently.
Veer.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM, daniel rupis
wrote:
>
> I was comparing some code in Qi with that of sbcl, I posted a question in
> comp.lang.lisp asking for a way to improve the
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:03 PM, daniel rupis
wrote:
>
> I was comparing some code in Qi with that of sbcl, I posted a question in
> comp.lang.lisp asking for a way to improve the perfomance, WJ gave a typed
> racket version that was slower than sbcl and also much slower than cpp.
The sbcl versi
I was comparing some code in Qi with that of sbcl, I posted a question in
comp.lang.lisp asking for a way to improve the perfomance, WJ gave a typed
racket version that was slower than sbcl and also much slower than cpp.
Daniel Rupis wrote:
Note: The code compute the number of primes below 3
17 matches
Mail list logo
