[Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Speed

[Branimir Maksimovic]

>From: Bulat Ziganshin <bulatz at HotPOP.com>
>Reply-To: Bulat Ziganshin <bulatz at HotPOP.com>
>To: "Branimir Maksimovic" <bmaxa at hotmail.com>
>CC: igouy at yahoo.com, haskell-cafe at haskell.org
>Subject: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Speed
>Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:56:57 +0300
>
>Hello Branimir,
>
>Friday, December 30, 2005, 3:44:26 AM, you wrote:
>BM> myHashString = fromIntegral . ff''' . ff'' . ff' . foldr f 0
>
>i use the following hash function in my program:
>
>filenameHash  =  fromIntegral . foldl (\h c -> h*37+(ord c)) 0
>
>(it's written without explicit parameter in order to try to help GHC
>machinery better optimize this function)

I've found that hasing function and anything that does calculation
is fast enough (compared imported C function and Haskell, and no real 
difference,
Haskell is fast regarding calculations)
, problem is with memory leak.
In this case hashing function have to be strong in order to avoid
linear search. when memory leak with HashTable dissapears I will
use some even better hash functions.

>
>BM> All in all functional version consumes less memory and is twice as
>BM> fast.
>
>IOArrays is second-class citizens in GHC/Haskell. they are scanned on
>_each_ GC, and this can substantially slow down program which uses
>large IOArrays.

Hm, there is Hans Boehm GC for C and C++ and I have gcmalloc and
gcmalloc_atomic. Why this isn;t present in Haskel? gcmalloc_atomic is 
usefull
when allocating large arrays that does not contain any references/pointers.

>
>for your program, things will be not so bad because IOArray, used inside
>your HashTable, contains far less than million elements and
>because your program has more to do itself. but try to compare MUT
>time of functional and imperative version - may be your algorithm is
>really faster and only GC times makes this comparision unfair

Hm that can be solved if hash_table use gcmaloc_atomic I guess.
(If all execution times goes for GC scans).

>
>.. writing this message i thought that reducing number of GCs can
>speed up my program and your program too. so there is third variant -
>using IOArray, but with "+RTS -A100m"
>
>
Wow, that option almost doubled speed of HashTable program (memory leak
remains).
Thank you, for enlighten me about GC. After this I can think of
gc_add_scanrange,gc_remove_scanrange and gcmalloc_atomic
functions as they are now common to other languages?
We need low level GC interface in order to produce fast
programs.

Greetings, Bane.

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.com/