From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA25426; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:39 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA25340 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailhost.tni.fr (firewall.tni.fr [195.25.255.61]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9A9gb505014 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from groscool.tni.fr ([195.25.255.1]) by mailhost.tni.fr (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with SMTP id 614; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:14 +0200 Received: from 192.168.7.60 by groscool.tni.fr (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:14 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Message-ID: <3DA54B75.80A7E7ED@tni.fr> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:13 +0200 From: "sebastien FURIC" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Frisch , Caml list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Num library References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hello, Alain Frisch a écrit : > > Hello Caml List, > > I'm considering using the Num library (from the standard distribution) for > implementing numbers in an interpreter. Questions: > > - Is there any benchmark available ? What is the overhead when dealing > with "small" integers ? > > - How does the library compare with other large/rational numbers > implementations ? I made some benchmarks with Dolphin Smalltalk (a pure Smalltalk bytecode interpreter) and O'Caml (using ocamlopt) a few months ago. To my great surprise, Dolphin Samlltalk outperformed O'Caml by a factor of 4 over various tests IIRC. I think the same results may be obtained with other modern big numbers implementations against O'Caml's one. The context was the following: I had to rewrite a program that performs symbolic manipulations from Smalltalk to O'Caml and this benchmark was the first thing I did to test O'Caml's performance (I was a little disappointed!). Finally, despite O'Caml's poor performance over bignum computations, O'Caml outperformed Smalltalk by a factor of 100 over "real world" benchmarks! (because only a few percents of the time is spent in bignum calculations and most of the time is spent doing substitutions etc.). Sébastien. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners