This is a performance regression, also for 0.3.5. My timings for 0.3.5:
julia> @time [sumofsins1(100_000) for i in 1:100]; elapsed time: 0.446675737 seconds (320109932 bytes allocated, 21.32% gc time) julia> @time [sumofsins2(100_000) for i in 1:100]; elapsed time: 0.115537618 seconds (896 bytes allocated) but for 0.2.1: julia> @time [sumofsins1(100_000) for i in 1:100]; elapsed time: 0.347052858 seconds (320072020 bytes allocated) julia> @time [sumofsins2(100_000) for i in 1:100]; elapsed time: 0.008610216 seconds (896 bytes allocated) Can you check whether an issue for this has been filed and if you can't find one file one? On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 07:36, Kuba Roth <kuba.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > Recently I run into this very interesting post: > http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2013/12/06/writing-type-stable-code-in-julia/ > > Surprisingly, when tested both examples against the latest 0.4 build - the > speed difference of the type-stable version is only 2-3 times faster then > unstable one. > I wonder what is the source of such a huge disparity and what version of > Julia was used? > > My timings: > unstable: 0.425013212 seconds (305 MB allocated, 7.56% gc time in 14 pauses > with 0 full sweep) > stable: 0.14287404 seconds (896 bytes allocated) > > John's: > unstable: 0.412261722 seconds (320002496 bytes allocated) > stable: 0.008509995 seconds (896 bytes allocated) > > Thanks, > kuba
