[erlang-questions] widefinder update

[Caoyuan]

It seems heap size is really a key for binary processing, and there
are other tips for binary processing too. With proper heap size set,
the straightforward Erlang code (in 80 LOC) can achieve around 3.1 sec
on my 4-CPU linux box (the ruby code took about 4.1 sec on the same
machine). The code is pasted on:

http://blogtrader.net/page/dcaoyuan/entry/learning_coding_binary_was_tim

With default heap size, the code may take 4.8+ sec.

On 10/24/07, Steve Vinoski <vinoski@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/07, Thomas Lindgren <thomasl_erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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.)
> >
>
> Yes, all results are for o1000k.ap, Tim's original large dataset. As for
> Ruby, I just ran Tim's original code on the 8-core, and out of ten attempts
> the best was:
>
>
> real    0m2.210s
> user    0m2.095s
> sys     0m0.109s
> --steve
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>


-- 
- Caoyuan