benchmarking Poly/ML
Stephen Weeks
MLton@sourcelight.com
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
> Those benchmarks are interesting!
>
> Why don't you try Poly/ML? It is a free implementation of Standard ML and
> in my experience it greatly outperforms SML/NJ (50% faster).
My experience is quite the opposite, especially on floating point benchmarks.
Here are some benchmarks that I ran with Poly/ML, back on September 7. Notice
that Poly/ML was particularly slow on the floating point ones (fft, mandelbrot,
matrix-multiply, nucleic). Maybe Dave can let me know if I need to set any
compiler switches or something.
Also, please do not make these benchmarks public, since I don't want to spend
time right now figuring out why SML/NJ is slow.
absolute running time in seconds
SML/NJ Poly/ML MLton
count-graphs 15.9 31.7 6.4
fft 31.8 249.6 19.8
fib 7.0 4.6 5.9
knuth-bendix 28.1 37.9 9.1
lexgen 31.9 25.8 16.7
mandelbrot 32.2 458.9 9.7
matrix-multiply 33.8 68.0 4.8
merge 351.5 42.3 49.6
mlyacc 29.6 108.5 11.8
nucleic 39.9 214.0 14.3
ratio-regions 77.9 65.3 11.7
simple 18.9 65.8 6.0
smith-normal-form 142.1 20.1 1.2
tak 21.8 10.1 13.7
vliw 19.2 14.2 9.2
ratio of running time to MLton
SML/NJ Poly/ML
count-graphs 2.5 5.0
fft 1.6 12.6
fib 1.2 0.8
knuth-bendix 3.1 4.2
lexgen 1.9 1.5
mandelbrot 3.3 47.3
matrix-multiply 7.0 14.2
merge 7.1 0.9
mlyacc 2.5 9.2
nucleic 2.8 15.0
ratio-regions 6.7 5.6
simple 3.1 11.0
smith-normal-form 118.4 16.8
tak 1.6 0.7
vliw 2.1 1.5