From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yang.shx@fltrp.com>
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A351BC48
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:03:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fltrp.com ([218.247.244.2])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2FA3kBE010342
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:03:54 +0100
Received: from kaitiany [192.168.15.11] by fltrp.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-8.05) id A3FE5AB01D2; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:07:58 +0800
From: YANG Shouxun <yang.shx@fltrp.com>
Organization: FLTRP
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml troll on Slashdot
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:08:34 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
References: <42363A86.6010309@1969.ws> <20050315092502.GA19351@furbychan.cocan.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050315092502.GA19351@furbychan.cocan.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200503151808.34994.yang.shx@fltrp.com>
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4236B302.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; shouxun:01 fltrp:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 hash:01 ocaml:01 argv:01 ocamlopt:01 shx:98 25,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 parameters:02 optimization:03 sys:03 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Level: 

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:25, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Karl Zilles wrote:
> > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/2258219
>
> The problem was with his stupid implementation of a hash table:
>
> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=142494&cid=11939530
>
> (That comment is +5 informative)

No. My experiments show that the OCaml implementation performs far better than 
the C++ implementation when the column and row get larger:

C++ is compiled with -O3, not sure what is the better optimization level, 
while OCaml version (actually I used Sys.argv and references to the two 
parameters) is compiled with ocamlopt

4x4 c++
real    0m0.003s
user    0m0.002s
sys     0m0.002s

4x4 ocaml
real    0m0.177s
user    0m0.137s
sys     0m0.001s

8x8 c++
real    0m8.703s
user    0m7.000s
sys     0m0.018s

8x8 ocaml
real    0m0.747s
user    0m0.485s
sys     0m0.002s

12x12 c++
the process was killed by the OS

12x12 ocaml
real    0m1.210s
user    0m0.886s
sys     0m0.001s