aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
Is there something obvious I am missing when aset in clojure 1.3-alpha8 won't work for shorts. aset-shorts does work, but way slower than I'd expect. There is also an order of magnitude difference in speed between aset ^ints and aset-int. I've looked at the source of amap (which was the first thing to give me problems with shorts), and from there came to writing the expanded amap macro out, and using aset-shorts rather than aset to get shorts working. I'm however stuck at looking at the source of aset and understanding how I can make that work with shorts. Related (now that I have the floor anyway), should I still be messing with java arrays in clojure 1.3, or would a vector of primitives be as fast? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:17 AM, bOR_ wrote: > Is there something obvious I am missing when aset in clojure 1.3-alpha8 > won't work for shorts. aset-shorts does work, but way slower than I'd > expect. There is also an order of magnitude difference in speed between aset > ^ints and aset-int. > > I've looked at the source of amap (which was the first thing to give me > problems with shorts), and from there came to writing the expanded amap > macro out, and using aset-shorts rather than aset to get shorts working. I'm > however stuck at looking at the source of aset and understanding how I can > make that work with shorts. > > Related (now that I have the floor anyway), should I still be messing with > java arrays in clojure 1.3, or would a vector of primitives be as fast? > aset- usage is not correct. Always use aset. (let [^shorts as (make-array Short/TYPE 10)] (aset as 0 (short 1))) Works fine. Proper use of Java arrays is idiomatic for the forseeable future as far as I can tell. Vectors of primitives are more efficient, but there's work to be done for them to approach Java arrays in perf. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
Thanks for the help, appreciated! It helped me figuring out where exactly things go haywire. This works: user> (let [^ints as (make-array Integer/TYPE 10)] (aset as 0 (+ (aget as 1) (aget as 2 0 and this breaks user> (let [^shorts as (make-array Short/TYPE 10)] (aset as 0 (+ (aget as 1) (aget as 2 No matching method found: aset What am I doing wrong? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:35 PM, bOR_ wrote: > Thanks for the help, appreciated! It helped me figuring out where exactly > things go haywire. > > This works: > user> (let [^ints as (make-array Integer/TYPE 10)] (aset as 0 (+ (aget as > 1) (aget as 2 > > 0 > > and this breaks > > user> (let [^shorts as (make-array Short/TYPE 10)] (aset as 0 (+ (aget as > 1) (aget as 2 > No matching method found: aset > > What am I doing wrong? > You need to cast to short. (aset as 0 (short (+ (aget as 1) (aget as 2 David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:39 PM, David Nolen wrote: > Vectors of primitives are more efficient, [1] > but there's work to be done for them to approach Java > arrays in perf. [2] Aren't your statements [1] and [2] contradictory? Did you mean "more idiomatic" perhaps in [1], or "more functional"? -- Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more civilized age. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
I think he meant that vectors of primitives are more efficient than normal vectors. Jonathan On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ken Wesson wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:39 PM, David Nolen > wrote: > > Vectors of primitives are more efficient, > > [1] > > > but there's work to be done for them to approach Java > > arrays in perf. > > [2] > > Aren't your statements [1] and [2] contradictory? Did you mean "more > idiomatic" perhaps in [1], or "more functional"? > > -- > Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! > Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true > hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more > civilized age. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: aset and shorts, aset vs aset-int
More efficient than vectors of non-primitives, one imagines. Or, more efficient than primitive vectors before 1.3 (I'm not sure if primitive vectors exist in 1.2). On May 29, 2:26 pm, Ken Wesson wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:39 PM, David Nolen wrote: > > Vectors of primitives are more efficient, > > [1] > > > but there's work to be done for them to approach Java > > arrays in perf. > > [2] > > Aren't your statements [1] and [2] contradictory? Did you mean "more > idiomatic" perhaps in [1], or "more functional"? > > -- > Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! > Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true > hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more > civilized age. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
