Awesome/ thanks for sharing. It's worth noting that criterion is also pretty great for microbenchmarks too. On my machine I get pretty good timing accuracy on anything that takes more than 20 nanoseconds.
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013, Scott Pakin wrote: > On 09/03/2013 06:02 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote: > >> It's also worth adding that ghci does a lot less optimization than ghc. >> > > Yes, I discovered that before I posted. Note from my initial message > that I used ghc to compile, then loaded the compiled module into ghci: > > Prelude> :!ghc -c -O2 allpairs.hs > Prelude> :load allpairs > Ok, modules loaded: AllPairs. > Prelude AllPairs> :m +Control.DeepSeq > Prelude Control.DeepSeq AllPairs> :show modules > AllPairs ( allpairs.hs, allpairs.o ) > > Likewise, the best tool for doing performance benchmarking is the >> excellent Criterion library. >> > > Ah, I didn't know about Criterion; that does look useful. For the > record, here's what Criterion reports for my three all-pairs > implementations: > > Prelude Criterion.Main AllPairs> defaultMain [bench "allPairs1" $ nf > allPairs1 [1..10000]] > ... > mean: 5.184160 s, lb 5.156169 s, ub 5.212516 s, ci 0.950 > std dev: 144.4938 ms, lb 127.3414 ms, ub 164.8774 ms, ci 0.950 > > Prelude Criterion.Main AllPairs> defaultMain [bench "allPairs2" $ nf > allPairs2 [1..10000]] > ... > mean: 2.310527 s, lb 2.290451 s, ub 2.329349 s, ci 0.950 > > Prelude Criterion.Main AllPairs> defaultMain [bench "allPairs3" $ nf > allPairs3 [1..10000]] > ... > mean: 10.05609 s, lb 10.02453 s, ub 10.08866 s, ci 0.950 > > As before, allPairs2 is the fastest, followed by allPairs1, with > allPairs3 in last place. > > -- Scott >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
