[erlang-questions] clueless performance question
Wed Jun 11 18:21:03 CEST 2008
What I can write about WF1 is, this was a little bit ... well I write it
clearly: "stupid" because WF1 was measured with data file cached. It is why
this Perl implementation won. This implementation mmap file and than forked
processes around this file and then rush. Each process reads it's mmap
forked copy which in normal cause random access to disk and must end with
far slowest solution.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Kevin Scaldeferri <>
> On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Mats Cronqvist wrote:
> > Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> >> ...I thought the "wide finder" work of
> >> last fall was pretty interesting. (Likewise for the
> >> WF2 getting started now.)
> > i tuned out of that discussion, but i was under the impression that
> > erlang pretty much... sucked.
> > so it was interesting to see Jeff Atwood's summary(*);
> I think it's more accurate to say that early, "idiomatic" Erlang
> implementations sucked. Once you give up on using line-oriented I/O
> and write a few hundred lines of code using raw I/O, it gets fast.
> For the record, though, the winning Perl implementation was a couple
> dozen lines and, while clever, not obfuscated.
> erlang-questions mailing list
--Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions