> On 21 Jun 2016, at 11:58, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

BTW, this is essentially a garbage collection benchmark: you create 100,000,000 
empty objects. It stresses the GC, especially the ephemeral phase of it. Since 
the GC is part of the VM, you are testing the VM more than any image code.

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 


Reply via email to