Congratulations!
2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+04:00 Adam Chlipala <[email protected]>: > They're out, and they include a serious Ur/Web configuration error for > one of the platforms (and I hope this error is fixed in amended results), > but there is already some good info here to support claims of high > performance for Ur/Web. Here's the text I added to the FAQ: > > Can you be more specific about run-time performance? > > The TechEmpower Web Framework > Benchmarks<http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/>provide a performance > comparison managed by a third party. Ur/Web does > pretty well, and you can check that site for details, but a few caveats are > important. First, the Ur/Web programming model is unusually oriented toward > security and concurrency simplicity. For instance, Ur/Web's standard random > number generation function generates cryptographically secure numbers, > which imposes an extra run-time cost in the several benchmarks based on > random numbers; and Ur/Web's concurrency model allows the programmer to > think of every piece of code as running inside a transaction, which imposes > extra run-time cost in the several benchmarks that use databases, > necessarily within a transaction per request, unlike in almost all other > frameworks' entries in the benchmarks. Also, by the way, the current i7 > numbers were captured under a serious configuration error and should be > ignored. > > OK, having said all that, Ur/Web is still doing pretty darn well! Consider > the results for the highest-capacity machine in the benchmarks, which > provides 48 hardware threads. In rough numbers, here's how Ur/Web is doing. > Test Requests/sec. Latency Hello world in JSON 400k 0.6 ms 1 SQL query > 100k 2 ms 20 SQL queries 10k 24 ms 20 SQL query/update pairs 500 2 s > > Yeah, Ur/Web is really falling over in the many-updates test, with > optimistic SQL concurrency thrashing to provide the transactional semantics > that most benchmark entrants don't bother to shoot for. Still, very few web > sites process as much as hundreds of requests per second! > > Despite Ur/Web's performance handicaps in service of a pleasant > programming model, on the Fortunes test, which is closest to the scenario > Ur/Web was designed for, Ur/Web has the best latency and 4th-best > throughput, out of about 50 frameworks passing that test's basic sanity > check. In the spirit of sibling rivalry, I'll also point out that the > Haskell frameworks consistently achieve less than half the throughput of > Ur/Web. > > _______________________________________________ > Ur mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur > >
_______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
