On 10/01/06, Daniel Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On my 1.2 GHz Duron (SuSE linux), I get significantly different timings than > those on the wiki. Sebastian Sylvan's, Kimberley Burchett's and Bertram > Felgenhauer's all take roughly thrice as long as posted (that's rather > consistent, but the factor is surprisingly large). Cale Gibbard's takes 18.44 > secs for N = 9, which is rather bad, I think.
Well, yeah, it's known not to be as efficient as the others -- I threw it together rather quickly from some parts I had laying around. I unfortunately hadn't tried the naive implementation of permutations since it's actually faster. (My version ought to still be better than the original though.) > > Really surprising (to me) are the following (N = 10) > > Algo Wiki Here > Clean imperative 2.1 s 4.54 s > Fastest Pure 1.8 s 8.65 s > Fastest Impure 1.4 s 1.77 s. > > So the ratio for the fast impure version is approximately 1.6GHz/1.2GHz, which > is natural, but the ratio for clean impure is 2.2 and for the fast pure > version, it's even 4.8! > All are compiled with -O2 -optc-O3. > Does that mean my system is really poor in producing binaries from pure > Haskell? > And why would that be so? Hmm... that's really odd. Which version of ghc/gcc are you using and how are you measuring the times? Perhaps other processes on your system are interfering? Do you get these numbers consistently? - Cale _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
