From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BEBBC0A for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:03:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.209]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l0J03ONw001340 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:03:25 +0100 Received: (qmail 10459 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2007 00:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (rftp@pacbell.net@69.230.206.159 with plain) by smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2007 00:03:23 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: LLpcyrUVM1lHHMAMZ3_zmVN1fizvYeeXzK.ndwjRHqvF4dnAhAkQ7Ujh.Z4mxvJkWYo38NHuUweln4xnmP2VlqZx05vUZrPTkAdfrWCMujC1NS2guHs4II92hnZ6dnIHTZ4A5aPi.WeEN5wqbwIuM1r98JlBPZLj Message-ID: <45B00AC7.4000804@rftp.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:03:19 -0800 From: Robert Roessler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a2pre) Gecko/20070117 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Benchmarking different dispatch types References: <45AED8C8.3080808@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45B00ACC.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; edgar:98 garbage:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 slight:01 types:03 dispatch:03 overflow:03 perhaps:04 function:08 strange:08 benchmarking:09 benchmarking:09 gray:90 Nathaniel Gray wrote: > On 1/17/07, Edgar Friendly wrote: >> >> well, running only 40,000 iterations is way too low because timing >> errors are going to get in the way of an accurate answer. > > I forgot to mention that I also tried 400,000 and 4,000,000. 400K > produced similar results to 40K, while 4M produced some strange > results that didn't make sense. > ... > These results are clearly garbage, since the rate of function calls is > negative. Or perhaps there's some time-travel going on... Or maybe there is a slight issue with overflow of whatever numeric representation is being used (I haven't examined the benchmarking package in any detail)? Robert Roessler roessler@rftp.com http://www.rftp.com