I tried redefining the few places in the code (string_reverse, I think) that used reverse to use the same version of reverse that I got such great speedups with in your code, and it made no difference. There are not any explicit calls to conj in the code that I could find.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Lee Spector <lspec...@hampshire.edu> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Wm. Josiah Erikson wrote: > > I think this is a succinct, deterministic benchmark that clearly > demonstrates the problem and also doesn't use conj or reverse. > > Clarification: it's not just a tight loop involving reverse/conj, as our > previous benchmark was. It's our real application but with deterministic > versions of all of the "random" functions, and while the project includes > some calls to reverse and conj I don't think they're playing a big role > here. > > Almost all of the time here is spent evaluating a Push program that just > does a lot of integer addition and consing. As far as I can tell all of the > consing is done with "cons" explicitly, and not conj.... although maybe I'm > missing something, and I'm saying this only from looking at our code, not > the Clojure libraries. > > -Lee > > -- > 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
