It turns out I run the client version. When running the server version (-server) the performance of sort is 4 times better.
On Jan 3, 11:20 pm, Gabi <bugspy...@gmail.com> wrote: > "1.6.0_17" .It doesn't support this flag: > Unrecognized VM option '+DoEscapeAnalysis' > > On Jan 3, 11:04 pm, Aaron Cohen <remled...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What JVM 6 sub-version are you using? > > > Does it make any difference if you specify -XX:+DoEscapeAnalysis at > > the command line? Various JVM 6 sub-versions enable and disable it by > > default and it can make a pretty hefty difference if it isn't enabled. > > > -- Aaron > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Gabi <bugspy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've double checked on my machine (Vista. JVM 6. Clojure 1.1.0). > > > Clojure's sort is is 4 to 5 times slower than sorted-vec2 > > > Maybe somebody with a Vista machine double check this? > > > > On Jan 3, 5:51 pm, ianp <ian.phill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > More findings: The reason that the Clojure's original sort is 8 times > > >> > slower > > > >> I don’t see that on my machine. I’m running 1.1.0-master-SNAPSHOT with > > >> Apple’s Java 6 VM in case that has anything to do with it, but here's > > >> what I get (after running the tests several times to warm up hotspot): > > > >> user=> (def v (vec (take 10000 (repeatedly #(rand-int 100000))))) > > > >> user=> (time (dotimes [_ 1000] (sort v))) > > >> "Elapsed time: 4376.471 msecs" > > > >> user=> (defn sorted-vec [coll] > > >> (let [a (into-array coll)] > > >> (java.util.Arrays/sort a) > > >> (vec a))) > > >> user=> (time (dotimes [_ 1000] (sorted-vec v))) > > >> "Elapsed time: 3254.371 msecs" > > > >> user=> (defn sorted-vec-2 [coll] > > >> (let [a (to-array coll)] > > >> (java.util.Arrays/sort a) > > >> (vec a))) > > >> user=> (time (dotimes [_ 1000] (sorted-vec-2 v))) > > >> "Elapsed time: 2599.63 msecs" > > > >> So sorted-vec is faster, but not an order of magnitude, and sorted- > > >> vec-2 is faster again. > > > >> Another alternative that may be worth considering is leaving the data > > >> in the array and using aget to access elements (this should give you O > > >> (1) access times vs. O(log32N) AFAIK). This may be a solution if > > >> you're not mutating the data in the array, but I'd be careful about > > >> this optimisation unless it really gets a large speed boost for your > > >> code. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups "Clojure" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > > > your first post. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
