On 03 June 2004 11:19, Ross Paterson wrote:
I've done some crude benchmarking of different implementations of sequences: (ghc -O, times in microseconds)
test cases Stack Queue Deque Append Index Update ------------------------------------------------------------- [] 5399 - - - - - JoinList 8498 17897 18197 35194 - - SimpleQueue 9198 12298 - - - - RealtimeQueue 64290 72389 - - - - BootQueue 17997 22896 - - - - BankersQueue 12098 21196 - - - - BankersDeque 16997 70589 22496 - - - Catenable 41593 123881 - 77788 - - CatDeque 57791 145477 62790 132879 - - RandList 11598 - - - 13498 29895 FingerTree 24996 33894 32994 45293 - - FingerTreeS 28995 44693 37894 68689 37094 37994
Test cases: Stack: 100000 random stack operations on a sequence of 2000 elements Queue: 100000 random queue operations on a sequence of 2000 elements Deque: 100000 random deque operations on a sequence of 2000 elements Append: building a sequence of fib 25 elements using appends Index: 100000 accesses at random indices on a sequence of 2000 elements Update: 10000 updates at random indices on a sequence of 2000 elements
Nice! This is exactly the kind of information someone choosing a sequence implementation needs to know. It should even go in the documentation, IMO. Why would anyone prefer Catenable over JoinList? Have you compared with the sequence implementation in DData? (it's like JoinList, but has some optimisations that make conversion to/from lists faster). Cheers, Simon