Simon Marlow wrote: > Brian Sniffen wrote: >> On 2/10/06, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Hmm...perhaps it is worth it, then? The benchmark may specify "hash >>> table", but I think it is fair to interpret it as "associative data >>> structure" - after all, people are using "associative arrays" that >>> (presumably) don't guarantee a hash table underneath, and it can be >>> argued that Data.Map is the canonical way to achieve that in Haskell. >> >> >> Based on this advice, I wrote a k-nucleotide entry using the rough >> structure of the OCaml entry, but with the manual IO from Chris and >> Don's "Haskell #2" entry. It runs in under 4 seconds on my machine, >> more than ten times the speed of the fastest Data.HashTable entry. > > I haven't been following this too closely, but could someone provide me > with (or point me to) the badly performing Data.HashTable example, so we > can measure our improvements? > > Cheers, > Simon
>From the shooutout itself: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=knucleotide&lang=ghc&id=3 and http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=knucleotide&lang=ghc&id=2 (I forget the exact different between them) >From the wiki (the Current Entry): http://haskell.org/hawiki/KnucleotideEntry#head-dfcdad61d34153143175bb9f8237d87fe0813092 _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe