On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 02:27:07 +0200, Thorsten Hater
Good Evening,
can anybody confirm that this implementation is somewhat faster than the current benchmark (at expense of memory consumption)?
Cheers, Thorsten
Somewhat faster is an understatement I would say: $ ghc --version The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 7.0.3 $ ghc -O2 -threaded -rtsopts fasta-old.hs -XBangPatterns [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( fasta-old.hs, fasta-old.o ) Linking fasta-old ... $ ghc -O2 -threaded -rtsopts fasta-new.hs [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( fasta-new.hs, fasta-new.o ) Linking fasta-new ... $ time ./fasta-old +RTS -N2 -RTS 25000000 >| old real 0m21.173s user 0m18.380s sys 0m0.910s $ time ./fasta-new +RTS -N2 -RTS 25000000 >| new real 0m4.809s user 0m2.190s sys 0m0.730s $ diff -q old new $ $ time ./fasta-old +RTS -N1 -RTS 25000000 >| old real 0m19.069s user 0m16.670s sys 0m0.630s $ time ./fasta-new +RTS -N1 -RTS 25000000 >| new real 0m3.797s user 0m1.500s sys 0m0.600s $ diff -q old new $ This is on a dual-core Core 2 running at 2.1GHz. I'm honestly not sure why performance doesn't improve with two threads, but I think I've made the point. - Ben