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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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 82D16BC0A for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:56:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.cs.unm.edu (mail.cs.unm.edu [64.106.20.33]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0IGuwJ3032381 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:56:59 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.unm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FA8E411C; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:56:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.cs.unm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10587-08; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:56:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from io.cs.unm.edu (io.cs.unm.edu [64.106.21.21]) by mail.cs.unm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D428FE4110; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:56:56 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:56:55 -0700 (MST) From: "William D. Neumann" To: Nathaniel Gray Cc: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Benchmarking different dispatch types In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at cs.unm.edu X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45AFA6DA.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; foc:01 2007,:98 0.4:98 recorder:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 closure:01 closure:01 neumann:02 neumann:02 benchmark:02 benchmark:02 black:96 types:03 On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Nathaniel Gray wrote: > Interesting, but are they meaningful? The warnings from Benchmark are > troubling, but I didn't have any immediate ideas on how to get rid of > them. Any suggestions? Well, looking at the benchmark module, it appears that message if one or more of the following occurs: The number of iterations is too low (default minimum = 4) The amount of cpu time taken is too low (default minimum = 0.4 seconds) The wallclock time was less than 1 second and the number of iterations was less than 1000. So either make the functions more intensive (which obscures the calling time and thus is bad here), do more calls, or supply a smaller value for min_cpu: let _ = let results = latencyN 4000000 ~min_cpu:0.1 [("function", call_f, ()); ("method", call_o, ()); ("closure", call_fc, ()); ("obj. closure", call_foc, ())] in tabulate results;; William D. Neumann --- "There's just so many extra children, we could just feed the children to these tigers. We don't need them, we're not doing anything with them. Tigers are noble and sleek; children are loud and messy." -- Neko Case Life is unfair. Kill yourself or get over it. -- Black Box Recorder