permeakra at gmail.com
Thu Dec 16 01:23:02 CET 2010
On 12/15/2010 05:48 PM, John Lato wrote:
> From: Permjacov Evgeniy <permeakra at gmail.com
> <mailto:permeakra at gmail.com>>
> current links
> The main difference from 'original' iteratees I read about is that
> do not use 'chunks' and pass data one-by-one. So, what I wrote may be
> slower, but should be easier to maintain and more transparent for ghc
> optimising facilities. I wanted as clean and simple code as possible,
> but it is still very, very messy at some places and I want it cleaner.
> Any suggestions? I also want to check, how good ghc does its work with
> this messy modules. They may become interesting benchmarks.
> Have you tried comparing it to either iteratee or enumerator (which
> had mostly comparable performance last time I checked, with a slight
> edge to iteratee)? Or to Oleg's library? Try writing test cases, a
> simple byte-counting application, or similar, so you can compare the
> performance with the other versions. Both enumerator and iteratee
> include demo programs that you could use as a starting point.
Ok, I tested with ByteString chunks and got roughly the same performance
(less then 5 % difference) as with Data.Iteratee (as expected, as it is
not a monad a bottlenec when using chunks). However, with Word8' streams
I slows down to point six times slower then lazy IO. this is still may
be acceptable if IO actions has to be performed while making nontrivial
list fusions, but in general it is fail.
Well, ghc has another complicated case for compiler optimisation tests.
CPS-style with rank2 types provides boost to performance, but when using
chunks it is insignificant, so haskell-98 version of iteratees may be
used with no worries.
> I agree that iteratees which work on a per-element level are very
> clean and should be amenable to optimization by GHC. It also shows a
> very clear relationship with stream-fusion techniques. Unfortunately
> when I last tried it I couldn't get acceptable performance. I was
> using ghc-6.12.1 IIRC, so it could be different now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe