Mailing list for all users of the OCaml language and system.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Mottl <markus@oefai.at>
To: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 21:16:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020818191613.GC8185@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208181716.NAA10426@hickory.cc.columbia.edu>

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Oleg wrote:
> Firstly, I expected iteration over O'Caml lists and integer arrays to
> be as 
> fast as iteration over std::list and std::vector<int>, respectively.
> Instead, > the benchmark gave me a speed difference of about 10x and
> 100x in favor of 
> C++ for lists and arrays, respectively.

My timings differ considerably (AMD Athlon 800 MHz 256 MB RAM; g++-2.96; 
demo_all.sh instead of demo_all_root.sh):

  lists
  0.680
  1.030
  2.740
  arrays
  0.250
  3.190
  rev
  0.200
  0.070
  memory
  0.840
  2.120
  tree
  7.280
  8.810

Note, btw., that I have measured user time: real time, which you have
chosen is just too unstable on my machine. Maybe this explains some of
your extreme measurements. I have also used a different file for reversal
(/etc/termcap) and have not run things with your root-script.

OCaml never inlines and/or unrolls recursive functions, giving iterative
solutions in C++ a significant edge concerning optimizations. The same
is true for the array solution, where you are even using higher-order
functions with "fold_left".

> Secondly, a little benchmark comparing mutable binary trees of 64 bit
> floats also showed g++-3.2 to be about an order of magnitude faster.

Not on my machine / with my compiler. Btw., not very fair of you to 
compare ephemeral and persistent datastructures... ;-)

> What was even more surprising was that O'Caml turned out to be about
> 10 times > faster than C++ for reversing lines in a file. I did not
> use explicit buffers > of any kind in either version, and in C++
> program, I used "getline", reading 
> into std::string which should provide about the same level of
> abstraction and > overflow protection as O'Caml string.

Because the C++-iostream library just sucks (at least the implementation 
used by g++). OCaml-I/O as provided by the Pervasives-module is way 
faster.

> I'm curious as to where these huge differences for these small
> programs come from.

Look at the assembler output for details... ;-)

Regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl                                             markus@oefai.at
Austrian Research Institute
for Artificial Intelligence                  http://www.oefai.at/~markus
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-08-18 19:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-08-18 17:17 Oleg
2002-08-18 18:00 ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:06   ` Oleg
2002-08-18 21:37     ` William Chesters
2002-08-19 13:02   ` Xavier Leroy
2002-08-19 13:58     ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-19 21:16       ` malc
2002-08-19 22:06         ` [Caml-list] Specialization (was: Inlining across functors) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-20  6:35           ` [Caml-list] " malc
2002-08-20  6:25         ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) malc
2002-08-19 14:39     ` [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark Oleg
2002-08-19 15:15     ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:16 ` Markus Mottl [this message]
2002-08-18 19:58   ` Oleg
2002-08-18 22:59     ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-19 13:12 ` malc
2002-08-19 13:22 ` malc
2002-08-23 21:05 ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-23 21:35   ` Oleg
2002-08-28 13:47     ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-28 14:34       ` Alain Frisch
2002-08-28 17:23       ` inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Oleg
2002-08-31  1:13         ` John Max Skaller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20020818191613.GC8185@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at \
    --to=markus@oefai.at \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox