[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hashtable woes

[Chris Kuklewicz]

Simon Marlow wrote:
> Brian Sniffen wrote:
>> On 2/10/06, Ketil Malde <ketil.malde at bccs.uib.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmm...perhaps it is worth it, then?  The benchmark may specify "hash
>>> table", but I think it is fair to interpret it as "associative data
>>> structure" - after all, people are using "associative arrays" that
>>> (presumably) don't guarantee a hash table underneath, and it can be
>>> argued that Data.Map is the canonical way to achieve that in Haskell.
>>
>>
>> Based on this advice, I wrote a k-nucleotide entry using the rough
>> structure of the OCaml entry, but with the manual IO from Chris and
>> Don's "Haskell #2" entry.  It runs in under 4 seconds on my machine,
>> more than ten times the speed of the fastest Data.HashTable entry.
> 
> I haven't been following this too closely, but could someone provide me
> with (or point me to) the badly performing Data.HashTable example, so we
> can measure our improvements?
> 
> Cheers,
>     Simon

>From the shooutout itself:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=knucleotide&lang=ghc&id=3

and

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=knucleotide&lang=ghc&id=2

(I forget the exact different between them)

>From the wiki (the Current Entry):

http://haskell.org/hawiki/KnucleotideEntry#head-dfcdad61d34153143175bb9f8237d87fe0813092