2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion <mhenr...@gmail.com>: > According to criterion, the performance of the old generic-deepseq code > was 6 to 7 times worse than that of the deepseq package. After switching > the class function to rnf, it got on par, if not better than the deepseq > package. I'm saying "if not", because I've observed contradicting > results from criterion, when I ran benchmarks for both packages at once, > and when I ran those separately. When running both at once, > generic-deepseq is slower than deepseq, except for the test with the > bigger list (see report-both.html). When ran separately, generic-deepseq > is consistantly faster (see report-deepseq.html and > report-gdeepseq.html). The criterion benchmark can be found on the > bitbucket repo at http://mu.org/~mux/report-deepseq.html.
When running criterion benchmarks use the -g flag to prevent benchmarks from interfering with each other due to GC. Also, set a high initial heap size (e.g. -H1G) so the benchmarks that run first don't have to pay the price of GHC growing the heap. -- Johan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe