problem with shared heap?

david wallin <>
Thu Mar 6 12:39:11 CET 2003

You misinterpreted me, (or I didn't make myself clear). I don't expect 
it to be faster in all cases, but I wouldn't expect to see any cases 
where a shared heap performed worse than without it. Maybe on par, but 
not worse. Hence my question, will there be cases where using a shared 
heap will degrade performance?


On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 11:24 AM, Matthias Lang wrote:

> david wallin writes:
>> Yes, but when shared heap is finished, will there be cases when 
>> running
>> a shared heap will actually perform worse than without it, or is it 
>> just
>> now in its experimental stages that these things can occur?
> Why would you expect the shared heap to be faster in _all_ cases?
> Related observations:
>   * Native code is not necessarily faster than BEAM.
>   * Binaries are not always faster than lists.
>   * Tail recursive algorithms are not always faster than non-tail
>     recursive ones.
> Matthias

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list