droundy: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 07:50:32PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:30:12 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > > > I want to see benchmarks too, but I thought I would justify why we > > > expect this to be no slower than the previous code...Everything below > > > is stuff that we discussed during the Sprint. > > > > Well, attached is a second set of comparative timing tests, sorry, only > > run once and with no nice output yet. Hopefully you can use a graphical > > diff tool to do side by side comparison. > > > > A nice little summariser script, maybe using the Haskell tabular > > library might be handy > > I've run my own set of timings, which give considerably more dramatic > differences than yours show, perhaps because I ran my tests on large > repositories? > > I'll summarize my results up here, but you can look below for a more > verbose summary. The new code is almost always faster by my reckoning, and > often *much* faster (as much as a factor of three!). > > I do, however, observe a performance regression on darcs annotate Setup.hs > (run in the darcs repository). It's a small regression (smaller than > Eric's tests show), but reproducible. And it's all the more striking given > the dramatic improvement the new code shows in all the other tests, which > suggest there may be a single function that has a large performance > regression (since it seems likely that parts of the annotate command have > been sped up in the new version). I don't have the time or inclination to > track down this issue, but I do hope Don is interested enough to look into > it!
Awesome. If someone tells me what is slow, or how to reproduce these numbers, I can track them down. If it turns out doing more bytestring thinking would be beneficial, I'm happy to help. -- Don _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
