Hi,
The benchmarks are updated since a while back, all versions use 64 bit
values, and there are different versions for jemalloc and the glibc
allocator (for Rust and C).
As noted by Daniel Micay the most important factor here will be the memory
allocator. Rust builds with jemalloc by default, wh
with i32 for rust:
(I am on x86_64)
==> vector_grow_c.csv <==
10,4.741286
==> vector_grow_rust.csv <==
10,3.147506
==> vector_grow_rust2.csv <==
10,3.153482
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Clark Gaebel wrote:
> Another problem I noticed is that the elements in the vect
Another problem I noticed is that the elements in the vector in the rust code
are `uint` (which on most systems is 64-bit) and in the C code you’re inserting
`int`s (32-bits on most systems).
That’s not really a fair contest.
- Clark
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM, François-Xavier Bou
and hitting reply-all is better...
quick update: the implementation with unsafe & ptr is not slower. I
just have too many cores + power-boost to get a clean benchmark every
time.
Running the benchs with n=1 billions (instead of 100 millions) gives me:
==> vector_grow_c.csv <==
10,5.0846
On my machine I get:
C: 1,0.509391
rust: 1,0.466069
So rust is faster for me.
For fun, I tried to write the rust version using unsafe and
pre-allocation to remove the second push:
let mut m = Vec::from_fn(101, |_| 0);
let pm = m.as_mut_ptr();
let mut m_idx = 1i;
let t = time
You’re also timing two pushes, as opposed to a push and an array write in the C
version.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Daniel Micay
wrote:
> On 25/09/14 03:17 PM, Fredrik Widlund wrote:
>> http://lonewolfer.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/benchmarking-dynamic-array-implementations/
>>
>> (disclaim
On 25/09/14 03:17 PM, Fredrik Widlund wrote:
> http://lonewolfer.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/benchmarking-dynamic-array-implementations/
>
> (disclaimer: *not* about comparing languages and claiming language X is
> "better" than language Y)
>
> Kind regards,
> Fredrik Widlund
https://github.com/jem
Great, thanks! Will update asap.
F
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Clark Gaebel wrote:
> I sent a pull request, but the tl;dr of it is that the rust version was
> run without optimizations turned on.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Fredrik Widlund <
> fredrik.widl...@gmail.com> wrote
I sent a pull request, but the tl;dr of it is that the rust version was run
without optimizations turned on.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Fredrik Widlund
wrote:
> http://lonewolfer.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/benchmarking-dynamic-array-implementations/
> (disclaimer: *not* about comparing lan
http://lonewolfer.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/benchmarking-dynamic-array-implementations/
(disclaimer: *not* about comparing languages and claiming language X is
"better" than language Y)
Kind regards,
Fredrik Widlund
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@moz
10 matches
Mail list logo
