[erlang-questions] widefinder update

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Steve Vinoski <vinoski@REDACTED> wrote:

 Anders, thanks for collecting and posting these.
> I've just performed a set
> of new timings for all of them, as listed below. For
> each, I just ran this
> command:
> 
> time erl -smp -noshell -run <test_case> main
> o1000k.ap >/dev/null
> 
> where "<test_case>" is the name of the tbray test
> case file. All were
> looped ten times, and I took the best timing for
> each. All tests were done
> on my 8-core 2.33 GHz dual Intel Xeon with 2 GB RAM
> Linux box, in a local
> (non-NFS) directory.

So, looking at Steve's results on his 8-core system,
we have:

            real    user     tbray5/real    user/real
tbray5      9.8     --       1.0            --
tbray14     6.63    34.53    1.48           5.21
tbray15     4.12    25.14    2.38           6.10
tbray16     3.16    16.15    3.10           5.11
tbray_tuple 2.28     8.61    4.30           3.78
tbray_ets   1.87     7.42    5.24           3.97
tbray_blkr  1.55     7.34    6.32           4.74

tbray5/real is the speedup versus the baseline, while
user/real is the speedup for each version due to
parallelization.

Thus, the latest version is 6.3 times faster than the
first one. The parallel speedup is about the same in
tbray5 and tbray_blkr, a very decent utilization of
>50%, but the amount of work (user) has shrunk from
(presumably more than) 34.53 seconds to 7.34 seconds.

Tim Bray's original Erlang number on "his macbook"
appears to be 34.16 seconds user (probably about the
same real?). How does this compare to Ruby? Tim Bray
reported that it needed 3.46 seconds real, again on
his macbook. (As I understand it, all results here are
for the big data set.)

Best,
Thomas


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com