Here's another benchmark for comparison: https://code.google.com/p/redsvd/wiki/English
-A On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-7, Dragan Djuric wrote: > > core.matrix claims that it is fast on its project page (with which I agree > in some cases). I expected from that, and from the last couple of your > posts in this discussion, that there are some concrete numbers to show, > which I can't find. > > My claim to win "ALL benchmarks" (excluding maybe tiny objects) came only > as a response to mike's remarks that I have only proven that neanderthal is > faster for dgemm etc. > > OK, maybe the point is that other libraries do not care that much about > speed, or that current speed is enough, or whatever, and I am ok with that. > I would just like it to be explicitly said, so I do not lose time arguing > about what is not important. Or it would be nice to see some numbers shown > to draw at least rough picture of what can be expected. I am glad if my > raising this issue would improve the situation, but I do not insist... > > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:16:15 PM UTC+2, Christopher Small wrote: >> >> Well, we also weren't claiming to win "ALL benchmarks" compared to >> anything :-) >> >> But your point is well taken, better benchmarking should be pretty >> valuable to the community moving forward. >> >> Chris >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Dragan Djuric <drag...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> So, there are exactly two measurements there: matrix multiplication and >>> vector addition for dimension 100 (which is quite small and should favor >>> vectorz). Here are the results on my machine: >>> >>> Matrix multiplications are given at the neanderthal web site at >>> http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/benchmarks.html in much >>> more details than that, so I won't repeat that here. >>> >>> Vector addition according to criterium: 124ns vectorz vs 78ns >>> neanderthal on my i7 4790k >>> >>> Mind you that the project you pointed uses rather old library versions. >>> I updated them to the latest versions. Also, the code does not run for both >>> old and new versions properly (it complains about :clatrix) so I had to >>> evaluate it manually in the repl. >>> >>> I wonder why you complained that I didn't show more benchmark data about >>> my claims when I had shown much more (and relevant) data than it is >>> available for core.matrix, but I would use the opportunity to appeal to >>> core.matrix community to improve that. >>> >>> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 8:13:29 PM UTC+2, Christopher Small wrote: >>>> >>>> For benchmarking, there's this: >>>> https://github.com/mikera/core.matrix.benchmark. It's pretty simple >>>> though. It would be nice to see something more robust and composable, and >>>> with nicer output options. I'll put a little bit of time into that now, >>>> but >>>> again, a bit busy to do as much as I'd like here :-) >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Dragan Djuric <drag...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As for performance benchmarks, I have to echo Mike that it seemed >>>>>> strange to me that you were claiming you were faster on ALL benchmarks >>>>>> when >>>>>> I'd only seen data on one. Would you mind sharing your full benchmarking >>>>>> analyses? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think this might be a very important issue, and I am glad that you >>>>> raised it. Has anyone shared any core.matrix (or, to be precise, >>>>> core.matrix) benchmark data? I know about Java benchmark code project >>>>> that >>>>> include vectorz, but I think it would help core.matrix users to see the >>>>> actual numbers. One main thing vectorz (and core.matrix) is claiming is >>>>> that it is *fast*. Mike seemed a bit (pleasantly) surprised when I shared >>>>> my results for vectorz mmul... >>>>> >>>>> So, my proposal would be that you (or anyone else able and willing) >>>>> create a simple Clojure project that simply lists typical core.matrix use >>>>> cases, or just the core procedures in core.matrix code that you want to >>>>> measure and that you are interested to see Neanderthal doing. Ready >>>>> criterium infrastructure is cool, but I'm not even ask for that if you do >>>>> not have time. Just a setup with matrix objects and core.matrix function >>>>> calls that you want measured. Share your numbers and that project on >>>>> Github >>>>> and I will contribute comparative code for Neanderthal benchmarks, and >>>>> results for both codes run on my machine. Of course, that would be micro >>>>> benchmarks, but useful anyway for you, one Neanderthal user (me :) and >>>>> for >>>>> all core.matrix users. >>>>> >>>>> You interested? >>>>> >>>>> With all that out of the way... I'm glad that you're willing to play >>>>>> ball here with the core.matrix community, and thank you for what I think >>>>>> has been a very productive discussion. I think we all went from talking >>>>>> _past_ each other, to understanding what the issues are and can now >>>>>> hopefully start moving forward and making things happen. While I think >>>>>> we'd >>>>>> all love to have you (Dragan) personally working on the core.matrix >>>>>> implementations, I agree with Mars0i that just having you agree to >>>>>> work-with/advise others who would do the actual work is great. I'd >>>>>> personally love to take that on myself, but I already have about a half >>>>>> dozen side projects I'm working on which I barely have time for. Oh, and >>>>>> a >>>>>> four month old baby :scream:! So if there's anyone else who's willing, I >>>>>> may leave it to them :-) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm also glad we understand each other better now :) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Clojure" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to clo...@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+u...@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 a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups "Clojure" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/dFPOOw8pSGI/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Clojure" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to clo...@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+u...@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 a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Clojure" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/dFPOOw8pSGI/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
