problem with shared heap?
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
>> a shared heap will actually perform worse than without it, or is it
>> 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.
More information about the erlang-questions