Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:24:20 +0100
Svenne Krap wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> just as an additional data point, this code runs in just over 6 seconds
>> in sbcl 0.9.3 on a dual 2.0 GHz G5 (though sbcl only uses one processor).
>
> On a single Xeon 3.4 GHz with sbcl 0.9.3:
>
> Evaluation took:
> 3.783 seconds of real time
> 3.305498 seconds of user run time
> 0.477927 seconds of system run time
> 0 page faults and
> 509,576,768 bytes consed
On my 1.8GHz AMD64 in 32-bit mode with SBCL 0.9.3 I'm now getting:
5.21 seconds of real time
4.15 seconds of user run time
0.62 seconds of system run time
0 page faults and
509,569,248 bytes consed
This seems to be on-par with other people's observations.
This compares to 1.037s for OCaml and 0.987s for C++, so SBCL is now much
more competitive.
Thanks for all the help!
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- References:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Raffael Cavallaro
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Svenne Krap
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Prev by Date: Re: How to port this code into Standard Common Lisp?
- Next by Date: Re: using Portable AllegroServe on CMUCL on Debian Sarge
- Previous by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Next by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading