Hello Josef, Monday, October 29, 2007, 2:08:54 PM, you wrote:
that can maybe account for the additional time savings. I'm not sure how to verify that this is the case though.
Bulat kindly suggested I use +RTS -s to monitor the garbage collectors behavior. It seems my hypothesis was right.
you may also look at these data: 1,225,416 bytes allocated in the heap 152,984 bytes copied during GC (scavenged) 8,448 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged) 86,808 bytes maximum residency (1 sample(s)) 3 collections in generation 0 ( 0.00s) 1 collections in generation 1 ( 0.00s) if your hypothesis is true, amount of data copied and number of generation-1 collection should be much less in the second case -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com