This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 86 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 86 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
* From: William D Clinger <will@xxxxxxxxxxx> | Petite Chez Scheme is quite slow compared to Chez Scheme. | If you want to know how values and call-with-values compare | to mu in Chez Scheme, you have to compare using Chez Scheme, | not Petite Chez Scheme. | Unless you are benchmarking a slow interpreter (and what's | the point of that?), Joo ChurlSoo's original benchmark runs | too quickly to time accurately, so I changed the 100000 to | 10000000 (ten million). | With that change, I measured the following on a SunBlade | 1500 with no other users. All times are in seconds: Chez Larceny MzScheme v6.1 v0.90 v301 | bm1: 10.9 6.5 25.4 | bm2: 12.0 10.1 24.7 | bm3: 11.2 6.4 22.6 | bm4: 10.4 10.7 36.0 | bm5: 10.5 6.0 17.3 | bm6: 10.0 9.9 25.2 | bm7: 10.8 6.8 25.5 | bm8: 11.2 11.2 35.1 | bm9: 1.6 3.6 12.3 | bm10: 1.7 7.6 15.7 | bm11: 2.1 4.7 17.2 | bm12: 1.8 8.6 22.5 | bm1: ten million uses of mu | bm2: ten million uses of values | bm3: ten million calls to a procedure that uses mu | bm4: ten million calls to a procedure that uses values | bm5: same as bm1, substituting 'one for 1, 'two for 2, and so on | bm6: same as bm2, substituting 'one for 1, 'two for 2, and so on | bm7: same as bm3, substituting 'one for 1, 'two for 2, and so on | bm8: same as bm4, substituting 'one for 1, 'two for 2, and so on | bm9: same as bm5, using a counter instead of for-each | bm10: same as bm6, using a counter instead of for-each | bm11: same as bm7, using a counter instead of for-each | bm12: same as bm8, using a counter instead of for-each | On this machine, I see little if any evidence that mu is | faster than values in Chez Scheme. | One could argue that mu is faster than values in Larceny | and in MzScheme, but Larceny v0.90 does not even attempt | to implement values efficiently, and the same appears to | be true of MzScheme. At any rate, it is clear that any | differences in the speed of mu and values are dwarfed by | differences in the speed of different implementations. | By the way, the effect of the minor changes between bm1 | and bm5, and between bm5 and bm9, should warn us against | trying to draw firm conclusions from these micro-benchmarks. | With Joo's original benchmarks, most of the execution time | was spent in creating a long list and in traversing that | list via the for-each procedure, suffering many cache | misses along the way. Only a small portion of the run | time was spent in mu or values. Thank you so much for the laborious benchmarks that I couldn't do. (I have neither Chez Scheme nor such a machine.) If VALUES/CALL-WITH-VALUES is implemented more efficiently in several implementations with MU as a momentum, I'm satisfied with that. -- Joo ChurlSoo