Thanks for your benchmark. I will upgrade all the dependencies and release 0.2.0
We are using defun with instparse in a DSL implementation, the performance is acceptable, but the code is much more readable. 2015-09-06 4:33 GMT+08:00 Rob Lally <rob.la...@gmail.com>: > Out of interest, I ran the benchmarks as is, and got more or less the same > results - 15x. Then I tried upgrading the defun dependencies - clojure, > core.match and tools.macro - all of which have newer versions, and then > running the benchmarks without leiningen’s jvm-opts and in a trampolined > repl. The results are better (see below). Still not great - but down from > 15x to 10x. > > That said: > > * I’m not sure I’d care: for most applications the overhead of function > dispatch is probably not the bottleneck. > * Elixir and the BEAM VM are awesome at many things, but I suspect (from > experience not evidence) that the defun version is still faster than the > elixir version. > > > Rob > > --- > > user=> (bench (accum-defn 10000)) > WARNING: Final GC required 2.590098761776679 % of runtime > Evaluation count : 429360 in 60 samples of 7156 calls. > Execution time mean : 139.664539 µs > Execution time std-deviation : 4.701755 µs > Execution time lower quantile : 134.451108 µs ( 2.5%) > Execution time upper quantile : 150.214646 µs (97.5%) > Overhead used : 1.565276 ns > > Found 5 outliers in 60 samples (8.3333 %) > low-severe 5 (8.3333 %) > Variance from outliers : 20.5880 % Variance is moderately inflated by > outliers > > user=> (bench (accum-defun 10000)) > Evaluation count : 44940 in 60 samples of 749 calls. > Execution time mean : 1.361631 ms > Execution time std-deviation : 40.489537 µs > Execution time lower quantile : 1.333474 ms ( 2.5%) > Execution time upper quantile : 1.465123 ms (97.5%) > Overhead used : 1.565276 ns > > Found 9 outliers in 60 samples (15.0000 %) > low-severe 1 (1.6667 %) > low-mild 8 (13.3333 %) > Variance from outliers : 17.3434 % Variance is moderately inflated by > outliers > > --- > > > On 5 Sep 2015, at 05:16, Amith George <strider...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nice. Hadn't heard of it before. It looks interesting. The criterium > benchmark is kinda disappointing though. The pattern matched function took > nearly 15x the time of the normal function. > > > -- > 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. > -- 庄晓丹 Email: killme2...@gmail.com xzhu...@avos.com Site: http://fnil.net Twitter: @killme2008 -- 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.
