Hi Philip, I can't say anything about these numbers because I don't know what was being run or how it was being run. For most tight code, rbx is faster so it makes me wonder what you're benchmarking.
Also, you've included no units on your numbers. Are those seconds? milliseconds? microseconds? rbx has to warmup to get good performance, so that matters. So could you please tell us: 1) what the units are 2) how you got these numbers 3) what the code was that was run - Evan On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Philip Rhoades wrote: > People, > > I have talked to people here before about speeding up my population genetics > scripts and have made a bit of progress with optimising etc but I thought I > would compare the three versions of Ruby I have been looking at - NB these > results are on my real (not test) code, albeit on a reduced number of > iterations. > > I ran the normal number of the inner two loops and only one of the outermost > loop (ie 1/50th of the total) and got the following with the different > versions of Ruby: > > ruby-1.8.7-p334 [ x86_64 ] = 31.41 > ruby-1.9.2-p180 [ x86_64 ] = 19.53 > rbx-head [ ] = 128.42 > > I realise that rbx started as an interesting exercise but the general goal > would to be eventually faster than v1.9? - if so, it seems like there is way > to go yet? > > Regards, > > Phil. > > -- > Philip Rhoades > > GPO Box 3411 > Sydney NSW 2001 > Australia > E-mail: [email protected] > > -- > --- !ruby/object:MailingList > name: rubinius-dev > view: http://groups.google.com/group/rubinius-dev?hl=en > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe: [email protected] > -- --- !ruby/object:MailingList name: rubinius-dev view: http://groups.google.com/group/rubinius-dev?hl=en post: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected]
