From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C48EBC57 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:47:53 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMHADzBBU2ty1O7/2dsb2JhbACVW44oeMIihUoEhGSJKQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,336,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="82525546" Received: from elehack.net ([173.203.83.187]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2010 15:47:29 +0100 Received: from [134.84.75.189] (x-134-84-75-189.uofm-secure.wireless.umn.edu [134.84.75.189]) by elehack.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F5C7C8859 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:47:58 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D0631FD.6000106@elehack.net> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:47:25 -0600 From: Michael Ekstrand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] performance of ocamlgraph and ocaml batteries References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 computations:01 nodes:01 wrote:01 graph:01 integer:01 caml-list:01 library:03 library:03 generally:04 michael:07 michael:07 quite:08 batteries:91 On 12/12/2010 11:09 PM, Kihong Heo wrote: > I have a big program using ocaml graph and ocaml batteries. > When I was improving performance of the program, I was curious about > the performance of those library. > > I use old version of ocaml batteries (maybe beta version?) and the latest version of ocamlgraph. > And I just use PMap and PSet among ocaml batteries. > (now those are changed to BatPMap and BatPSet as I know). > > I want to know > 1. Is there a big difference in memory consumption between old and new version of ocaml batteries? There shouldn't be. > 2. Generally, is the memory consumption of ocamlgraph is effective? In my experience, it is quite reasonable in its memory use (particularly compared with a Java library I tried). The ultimate test, though, is your application. Can you do the computations you need within the resources you have available? I'm guessing it'll be pretty hard to beat ocamlgraph, though, except with a very tight array-based implementation with integer nodes. -Michael