As it is a *sparse matrix*, C++ library unavailable on JVM, I don't consider it relevant for comparison as these are really apples and pineapples. For now, at least.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:13 AM, A <aael...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 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+unsubscr...@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.
