On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello John. > > I'm just guessing here. Lacking information. It could be: > > Guess 3) the UI is known to be much slower in Pharo. Can you try headless or > after ticking "Server mode" In the Pharo settings in System.
Or try something like... [ Transcript cr; show: (Time millisecondsToRun: [1 to: 100000000 do: [:i | Object new]] ) ] forkAt: 75. cheers -ben > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:28 AM, John Brant <br...@refactoryworkers.com> > wrote: >> >> I have some code that creates a several hundred MB model. When I run the >> code under Pharo it takes ~2.5 minutes to run. However, if I run the same >> code in Squeak, it takes ~2 minutes. Since my code just uses base >> collections and streams, I thought the times should be very similar between >> the two. After a little investigation, I noticed that even simple things >> like “Object new” can take much more time in Pharo. Here’s an example that I >> executed in Squeak and Pharo: >> >> Time millisecondsToRun: [1 to: 100000000 do: [:i | Object new]] >> >> Squeak times: >> 1255 1257 1261 1265 1280 1294 1314 1337 1350 1360 >> >> Pharo times: >> 1815 1818 1870 1879 1900 1922 1944 1952 1958 2170 >> >> The results are the first 10 executions sorted by time after opening an >> image. Pharo doesn’t always give these poor results. Occasionally I can get >> times as good a Squeak. For example, I was able to get these times in Pharo: >> 1253, 1284, 1297, 1314, 1317. However, it generally takes ~1.8 seconds in >> Pharo vs. the ~1.3 seconds for Squeak. The worst time I got for Squeak was >> in the 1.6 second range. The worst for Pharo was in the 4.3 second range. >> >> Does anyone know why Pharo is slower? Is there some memory setting that I >> need to change? >> >> >> John Brant > >
