1. [Attn] Robert: Faster sequence operations in Eu 1.x ?
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Dec 15, 2005
-
Last edited Dec 16, 2005
OK so I got bored and found Euphoria v1.2 online and decided to take it out for
a "spin". When I found the Sequence.ex benchmark program, I though cool lets see
how much faster Euphoria v2.5 is with sequence operations...
Is it my imagination or is v1.2 faster than v2.5 at various sequence operations?
================================================================
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Vincent>ex
Euphoria Interpreter 2.5 for 32-bit DOS.
Copyright (c) Rapid Deployment Software 2005
Permission is freely granted to anyone to copy and
redistribute this Public Domain Edition of Euphoria.
file name to execute? C:\Documents and
Settings\Vincent\Desktop\EUPHOR12\sequence
Euphoria Sequence Benchmarks
* Initializing a length-100 sequence ---> 1411200 initializations per second
* Adding two length-100 sequences ---> 599867 sequence-adds per second
* Appending to a sequence ---> 17350498 appends per second
* Slicing a sequence ---> 7585548 slices per second
* Name look-up ---> 1164784 look-ups per second
================================================================
C:\Documents and Settings\Vincent\Desktop\EUPHOR12>ex
Euphoria 1.2 Public Domain Edition
(c) 1994 Rapid Deployment Software
Permission is freely granted to anyone to copy and
redistribute this Public Domain Edition of Euphoria.
file name to execute? sequence
Euphoria Sequence Benchmarks
* Initializing a length-100 sequence ---> 3921466 initializations per second
* Adding two length-100 sequences ---> 1137234 sequence-adds per second
* Appending to a sequence ---> 24140000 appends per second
* Slicing a sequence ---> 14280730 slices per second
* Name look-up ---> 2277740 look-ups per second
================================================================
Robert please tell me that there is a logical explaination for this. Is a
smaller number per second better?
Vincent
2. Re: [Attn] Robert: Faster sequence operations in Eu 1.x ?
> Robert please tell me that there is a logical explaination for this. Is a=
smaller number per second better?
A larger number per second is better. 2.5 can do more stuff in a given
second than 1.2. It seems that 2.5 is twice as fast as 1.2 in all
apsects. Considering its twice the version, that's right on par.
~Greg
3. Re: [Attn] Robert: Faster sequence operations in Eu 1.x ?
Greg Haberek wrote:
> Vincent wrote:
> > Robert please tell me that there is a logical explaination for this. Is a=
> > smaller number per second better?
>
> A larger number per second is better. 2.5 can do more stuff in a given
> second than 1.2. It seems that 2.5 is twice as fast as 1.2 in all
> apsects. Considering its twice the version, that's right on par.
No, Vincent is right.
I confirmed it on my XP machine.
1.2 appears to be faster than 2.5.
I suspect that 1.2 is not really faster.
There may be something fishy going on.
The machine code that's executed should be
almost the same, and where it's different,
2.5 should be faster in most cases.
The only thing that should be faster in 1.2 is
the slice benchmark. At a certain point (1.4 I think),
I gave up some slice speed to gain subscripting speed
as well as saving some memory. It was a good trade-off.
I'll investigate this more tomorrow.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
