On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, David Roundy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 09:31:31PM +0000, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: >> >>> OK, I've now benchmarked this work on the GHC repo in kowey's >>> zoo, and the overall picture suggests significant speedups (20% or >>> so) on most of the tests (get, pull, unpull, record, unrecord, >>> revert), with possible slowdowns in whatsnew and get-lazy of >>> about 10%. >> >> My apologies for lazy benchmarking. This is all complete rubbish, as I >> should have realised if I stopped to think about what was getting faster >> and whether it was plausible. >> >> After some more careful runs thanks to kowey's scripts, the basic >> conclusion is that there isn't any obvious (>5%) difference in performance >> either way, although in general the new code is probably a bit faster than >> the old code. > > Do you still think this code is worth putting in? I lean against it, if it > has no measurable performance impact. On the other hand, using a map does > seem like a good idea, so if you think this should go in, I'll go ahead and > review it.
Sorry, I was unclear. It still has a huge impact on 'whatnew -sl' on the articifial repo with 1000 new files that I've been testing with (quadratic -> something a lot better, probably n log n). It's just the testing on "normal" repos like ghc etc that shows no noticeable difference; which is at it should be really, I was benchmarking to ensure there was no slowdown there, and got carried away by results showing a speedup across the board without really thinking about them. So I do think this should go in. Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
