On 19 May 2004 11:28, Ross Paterson wrote:
testData = take 100000 $ randomRs (0, 2^30-1) (mkStdGen 7)
(I have a slower machine), changed isEmpty to size to guarantee strictness, and got the following times (averaged over 50 runs each):
ins ins+del Data.FiniteMap 4.783 8.304 Data.Tree.AVL 4.561 6.895 DData.Map 4.765 7.369 DData.IntMap 4.952 7.742
(I tried to be fair by only using ! and UNPACK on Ints in each case, and compiling them all the same way: -O.) I assume that Christian's results imply that IntMap is better for lookup, but it doesn't look very attractive here.
Unable to resist a good benchmark, I did my own measurements. Same random input, but I did the timing in Haskell so I could factor out the test data construction. Results averaged over 10 runs: Insert Lookup Delete AVL 0.88 0.35 0.89 FiniteMap 1.08 0.19 1.17 DData.Map 1.09 0.23 1.13 DData.IntMap 0.72 0.18 0.61 I UNPACKed the appropriate fields in Map and IntMap. AVL loses out on lookup. Probably due to the extra pair that needs to be deconstructed at each node. I don't know why DData.Map comes out worse than FiniteMap for lookup: the implementations are the same, so perhaps the tree ends up differently balanced? Cheers, Simon