Pitiful benchmark performance

Sean Hinde <>
Mon Jun 11 18:27:04 CEST 2001


> > Sean Hinde wrote:
> > >
> > > Now I know that benchmarks are not representative etc etc 
> but they do
> > > encapsulate quite a few common idioms and there shouldn't be 
> > > a good reason
> > > for Erlang to do so badly. Maybe the HIPE guys can use (are 
> > > using?) these in
> > > their investigations into optimal GC schemes etc for R8?
> 
> I think there are problems with the benchmark that casues the 
> huge need of memory, and it is not certain that a bettter GC 
> would make the problem go away. Still all benchmarks are 
> interesting to us so we might steal some of them...

It would be nice to see Erlang up there in the top few. Personally I don't
see what is wrong with the code for the word count benchmark - it doesn't
seem to be breaking any obvious Erlang no-no. Hmmm.

> A nice thing though is that Erlang behaves quite well on some 
> benchmarks, for example nested loops, where it is one of the 
> fastest non-natively compiled systems. (And HiPE is more than 
> 6 times faster than BEAM on this benchmark putting Erlang in 
> the ballpark of the statically typed smlnj.)

That's good to hear. Looking forward to R8.

- Sean



NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
This email (including attachments) is confidential.  If you have received
this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this
email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any
reliance upon its contents.  We cannot accept liability for any breaches of
confidence arising through use of email.  Any opinions expressed in this
email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect our opinions.  We will not accept responsibility for any commitments
made by our employees outside the scope of our business.  We do not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of such information.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list