* speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) @ 2022-11-06 16:01 Damien Mattei 2022-11-06 22:23 ` Speed " Hans Åberg ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Damien Mattei @ 2022-11-06 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-user hello, when comparing the (almost) same code running on Guile and Racket i find big speed difference: still computing some logic expression Cn minimalized in disjunctive normal form: C9: 35" Guile MacOS Apple silicon C10: 37' Guile MacOS Apple silicon 10" Guile // MacOS (8cores) Apple silicon 4" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon C11 : 1'17 Guile // MacOS Apple silicon C11: 56" Guile // (6cores) Intel, Linux 11" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon 22" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon C12: 1'24" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon 1'34 Racket MacOS Apple silicon 1'10" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon 9' 25" Guile // MacOS Apple silicon C13: 17' ,20', 24'(use <8Gb of memory) Racket MacOS Apple silicon 15' 37",16' 10" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon 7'50" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon par-map: test : succeed computation: very slow threads: test: blocked computation:partial and crash my conclusion about // is that in Guile and Racket my // schema is not good, i have poor gain. The strange thing was why in Guile i had : C10: 37' Guile MacOS Apple silicon 10" Guile // MacOS (8cores) Apple silicon 37' in sequential code and 10" in // with only 8 core speed up: because in // code i use vectors and in sequential code list i think. So now the question is why is Guile slow compared to Racket? is it again about the lists like versus vectors? or not? compared with Python sympy (no // support) it has the same magnitude order than Racket (// almost change nothing:16' versus 17' for C13) but twice more speed... but Python is known to be slow ( not compiled code)... i'm running Guile in the interpreter (same for Racket), would it be more fast in command line execution? sorry if my question is stupid, i know Bigloo can compile rather being in interpreter,but do not know about guile , each time i modify my code it seems to be compiled... (message: ;;; compiling......) last version of code is here: https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/guile/logiki%2B.scm#L3092 Best regards, Damien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) 2022-11-06 16:01 speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) Damien Mattei @ 2022-11-06 22:23 ` Hans Åberg 2022-11-06 22:35 ` Damien Mattei 2022-11-07 9:21 ` speed " Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 2022-11-08 8:03 ` Linus Björnstam 2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Hans Åberg @ 2022-11-06 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Damien Mattei; +Cc: guile-user > On 6 Nov 2022, at 17:01, Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com> wrote: > > So now the question is why is Guile slow compared to Racket? How is thread performance? —The Boehm GC puts locks around every memory allocation, which is slow if heavy in use. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) 2022-11-06 22:23 ` Speed " Hans Åberg @ 2022-11-06 22:35 ` Damien Mattei 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Damien Mattei @ 2022-11-06 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-user at some point, threads block or even crash but the sequential run is slow too compared to Racket one. On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 11:23 PM Hans Åberg <haberg-1@telia.com> wrote: > > > On 6 Nov 2022, at 17:01, Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So now the question is why is Guile slow compared to Racket? > > How is thread performance? —The Boehm GC puts locks around every memory > allocation, which is slow if heavy in use. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) 2022-11-06 16:01 speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) Damien Mattei 2022-11-06 22:23 ` Speed " Hans Åberg @ 2022-11-07 9:21 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 2022-11-07 13:23 ` Zelphir Kaltstahl 2022-11-09 14:24 ` Damien Mattei 2022-11-08 8:03 ` Linus Björnstam 2 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide @ 2022-11-07 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Damien Mattei; +Cc: guile-user [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --] Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com> writes: > when comparing the (almost) same code running on Guile and Racket i find > big speed difference: Schemes differ a lot in speed of different tasks, but Racket is one of the fastest ones. Factor 2 difference sounds plausible. For a comparison, see the r7rs benchmarks: https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ That said, I have seen 10x speedups in Guile code when people went for optimizing it. > last version of code is here: > https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/guile/logiki%2B.scm#L3092 Could you give the shell commands to setup and run your speed-test? Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) 2022-11-07 9:21 ` speed " Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide @ 2022-11-07 13:23 ` Zelphir Kaltstahl 2022-11-09 14:24 ` Damien Mattei 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Zelphir Kaltstahl @ 2022-11-07 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide, Damien Mattei; +Cc: guile-user Hi! I think the only way to use multiple cores in Racket is to use "places" and that means starting new Racket VMs. Lambdas are not easily serialized with all their environment, so it is difficult to actually "send a lambda" to another "place" (Racket VM) dynamically. The only way I found was to not send them at all, but predefine functions, so that they are already known in other places and do not need to be send. Instead send only data. This makes it difficult to build a pool for things (threads, workers, etc.), that run on multiple cores and dynamically accept "work" to do. (– Has anyone done it? With dynamically calculated work being sent to the threads/workers? I've not seen an example.) This was unsatisfactory for me for implementing a decision tree algorithm, which is, why I originally took a look at Guile. So I think as a consequence there is a lot of overhead when using multiple cores in Racket. At least initially, for starting Racket VMs (places). (Correct me, if I am wrong about these things. It is only my experience from using Racket before using Guile, and I learned a lot since then.) I would expect using futures on Guile to have much less overhead, than starting Racket places and fibers to have even less overhead than futures. But this is only guessing. From that I would expect multi-core with many separate tasks to run, to be faster on Guile. But again, merely guessing around. If sequential execution is faster in Racket, there is probably some point, at which parallelizing outweighs the benefits of sequentially being faster. Regards, Zelphir On 11/7/22 10:21, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com> writes: > >> when comparing the (almost) same code running on Guile and Racket i find >> big speed difference: > Schemes differ a lot in speed of different tasks, but Racket is one of > the fastest ones. Factor 2 difference sounds plausible. For a > comparison, see the r7rs benchmarks: > https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ > > That said, I have seen 10x speedups in Guile code when people went for > optimizing it. > >> last version of code is here: >> https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/guile/logiki%2B.scm#L3092 > Could you give the shell commands to setup and run your speed-test? > > Best wishes, > Arne -- repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) 2022-11-07 9:21 ` speed " Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 2022-11-07 13:23 ` Zelphir Kaltstahl @ 2022-11-09 14:24 ` Damien Mattei 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Damien Mattei @ 2022-11-09 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide; +Cc: guile-user sorry for my late answer but i needed to test again (and modify code a bit) a few precision: -the code is perheaps hard to // : recursive algo versus imperative one -only a portion of code is //( i // the unification of minterms because it was really long to compute,but perheaps there are other bottlenecks, perhaps some cartesian product of set need too // but i did not do it,all algo are not easily parallelizable) -i no more use thread or par-map but future with vectors -the sequential code remains with lists As it seems that // only speed up code because i use Vectors in the portion of // code instead of list, i decided to compare Vectors and List, for this i use the // code with options of a number of CPUs equal to 1, so it is like the sequential code but still use Vectors and i can compare with the sequential code of Lists -Guile is 6x slower than Racket on this algo -Racket is 2x slower than Python sympy but i do not know if the algo of symPy is the same as mine, but it is written in Python (not C) witch has a reputation of slowness and symPy has no support for //. -I discover one thing about Racket because i benchmarks using version 7.7 and 8.6 but the last version is based on Chez Scheme which is more than 5x faster,i upgrade my Linux system to this version today ,so i can no longer test Racket 7.7 speed but it still appear on the bechmarks below. -i did minor modif of code (remove useless sorting of variable and expressions) this week improving speed by 10-20% on all system so some older benchmarks can behavior incoherent with new ones. -strange thing, Python use almost no memory and my algo gigas... but i use Quine - Mc Cluskey and Petrick algorithms which are conventional algo for this problem. - @Linus:about Scheme+, mutability, i use it also with Racket and it is fast, 'for loops are various ,some old: for/basic for/break some recent but all use (let () loop inside sometimes with call/cc i admit,but only when usefull for 'breaking from loop.Indeed i read the link you provided and it was very interesting. here is the benchmarks, i used 2 systems: Guile 3.0.7 ,Racket 8.6 , Python 3.9.6 SymPy 1.1 ,MacOS Apple silicon M1 (8cores), RAM: 16Gb, HD:SSD Guile 3.0.1 ,Racket 7.7 ,Racket 8.6 (based on Chez Scheme !) , Python 3.7.4 , SymPyLinux Intel (6cores), RAM: 16Gb, HD:SSD C9: 35" Guile MacOS Apple silicon M1 50",40" (without useless sorting of sets) Guile Linux intel 26" Racket 7.7 Linux Intel C10: 37' Guile MacOS Apple silicon M1 47' Guile Linux intel 10" Guile // MacOS (8cores) Apple silicon M1 9" Guile // (1 core ! vector) Linux intel 4" Racket 8.6 // MacOS Apple silicon M1 7" Guile // (3 core vector) MacOS Apple silicon M1 43' Racket 7.7 Linux Intel C11 : 1'17 Guile // MacOS Apple silicon M1 56" Guile // (1 core ! vector) Linux intel 1' Guile // (1 core ! vector) MacOS Apple silicon 1' 04"Guile // (3 core vector) MacOS Apple silicon C11: 56" Guile // (6cores) Intel, Linux 1'08" (1 core ! vector) Linux intel 9 " Racket 8.6 MacOS Apple silicon 11" Racket 8.6 // MacOS Apple silicon 22" Python 3.9.6 sympy 1.1 no // MacOS Apple silicon 17" Python Linux intel 15" Racket 8.6 Linux Intel C12: 1'24" ,1' 20" Racket 8.6 // MacOS Apple silicon 1'34 ,1' 27" Racket 8.6 MacOS Apple silicon 1' 23" Racket 8.6 // (1 core !) MacOS Apple silicon 1'10" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon 9' 25" Guile // MacOS Apple silicon 9',9'45" Guile (1 core ! vector) Linux intel 8' 37" Guile // (3 core vector) MacOS Apple silicon 10' 10" Guile // (7 core vector) MacOS Apple silicon 8'33" Guile // (1 core ! vector) MacOS Apple silicon 2'10" Python sympy no // Linux intel 2' 05" Racket 8.6 Linux Intel C13: 17' ,20', 24'(use <8Gb of memory) Racket MacOS Apple silicon 15' 37",16' 10" ,14' (last version of code) Racket // MacOS Apple silicon 14' Racket 8.6 // (1 core !) MacOS Apple silicon 7'50" Python 3.9.6 sympy 1.1 no // MacOS Apple silicon 1h37' Guile (1 core ! vector) Linux intel 17'20" Python sympy no // Linux Intel 16'35" Racket 8.6 (1 core !) Linux Intel but this not really important, i have enough data and computation result ,after for k > 13 computation of Ck would take many days even in Python as it is an NP hard problem. But i will check if other region of my code are better candidate to // ,because for now // brings almost nothing (except that with Guile the // region is more fast because Vectors are more fast than List with Guile) My conclusion for now that Racket 8.6 (confirm to be based on Chez Scheme ?) is a bit faster than Python :-) and they are 6x time faster than Guile 3 on this algo . Note that my algo use more than 8Gb of data for C13 when python use almost no memory (i suppose symPy use only binary datas computed the dumb way when my algo manipulate expressions symbolically....i suppose too that my unified minterms made of 0 ,1 and 'x in list can be representated with base 3 numbers on 2bits but with a limitation of 64 /2 = 32 bits of variables which is anyway never computable...NP-hard),i suppose changing my algo to deal like symPy one would kick the ass of Python definitively both with Racket and Guile by removing a lot of memory allocation and garbage collector use. i will check again the data structure of my code, i also will try to to publish the full code i use for benchmarks. Damien post-note: i'm checking again because the code i wrote use call/cc generate by macro in 'future and i'm not sure it is compatible with ,when i test it i find no speed up and i can not find what is wrong, i''m almost back to the beginning of problem... On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:28 AM Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de> wrote: > > Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com> writes: > > > when comparing the (almost) same code running on Guile and Racket i find > > big speed difference: > > Schemes differ a lot in speed of different tasks, but Racket is one of > the fastest ones. Factor 2 difference sounds plausible. For a > comparison, see the r7rs benchmarks: > https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ > > That said, I have seen 10x speedups in Guile code when people went for > optimizing it. > > > last version of code is here: > > > https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/guile/logiki%2B.scm#L3092 > > Could you give the shell commands to setup and run your speed-test? > > Best wishes, > Arne > -- > Unpolitisch sein > heißt politisch sein, > ohne es zu merken. > draketo.de > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) 2022-11-06 16:01 speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) Damien Mattei 2022-11-06 22:23 ` Speed " Hans Åberg 2022-11-07 9:21 ` speed " Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide @ 2022-11-08 8:03 ` Linus Björnstam 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Linus Björnstam @ 2022-11-08 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Damien Mattei, guile-user Hi! First of all, Guile is (currently) slower than racket or many things. The interpreter should not be slower than running from the command line. One thing you could do is modularize the code. Currently there will be a function call overhead, since guile cannot know if a function has been replaced via set!. Andy wrote about it here: http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/06/26/fibs-lies-and-benchmarks Secondly, your code uses quite a lot of mutation. I got scheme+ and macroexpanded it. I didn't look for hot code, but there was a liberal use of set!. That means you will get a boxing overhead (which should be true for both racket and guile), but since I believe I read somewhere that racket is better at type-inference than mainline chez I think it is safe to say it probably does better than guile with mutation, at least locally. Most notably, the for loops are definitely slower than the same tail-recursive let loop. Also, for seems to expand to use call/cc instead of delimited continuations (which are supported in both guile and racket). The punishment in racket for call/cc is low, whereas it is high in guile. Best regards Linus Björnstam On Sun, 6 Nov 2022, at 17:01, Damien Mattei wrote: > hello, > > when comparing the (almost) same code running on Guile and Racket i find > big speed difference: > still computing some logic expression Cn minimalized in disjunctive normal > form: > > C9: 35" Guile MacOS Apple silicon > > C10: 37' Guile MacOS Apple silicon > 10" Guile // MacOS (8cores) Apple silicon > 4" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon > > C11 : 1'17 Guile // MacOS Apple silicon > C11: 56" Guile // (6cores) Intel, Linux > 11" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon > 22" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon > > C12: 1'24" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon > 1'34 Racket MacOS Apple silicon > 1'10" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon > 9' 25" Guile // MacOS Apple silicon > > C13: 17' ,20', 24'(use <8Gb of memory) Racket MacOS Apple silicon > 15' 37",16' 10" Racket // MacOS Apple silicon > 7'50" Python sympy no // MacOS Apple silicon > > par-map: > test : succeed > computation: very slow > > threads: > test: blocked > computation:partial and crash > > my conclusion about // is that in Guile and Racket my // schema is not > good, i have poor gain. > > The strange thing was why in Guile i had : > C10: 37' Guile MacOS Apple silicon > 10" Guile // MacOS (8cores) Apple silicon > 37' in sequential code and 10" in // with only 8 core speed up: because in > // code i use vectors and in sequential code list i think. > > So now the question is why is Guile slow compared to Racket? is it again > about the lists like versus vectors? or not? > > compared with Python sympy (no // support) it has the same magnitude order > than Racket (// almost change nothing:16' versus 17' for C13) but twice > more speed... but Python is known to be slow ( not compiled code)... > > i'm running Guile in the interpreter (same for Racket), would it be more > fast in command line execution? sorry if my question is stupid, i know > Bigloo can compile rather being in interpreter,but do not know about guile > , each time i modify my code it seems to be compiled... (message: ;;; > compiling......) > > last version of code is here: > https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/guile/logiki%2B.scm#L3092 > > Best regards, > Damien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-09 14:24 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-11-06 16:01 speed difference between Guile and Racket (and Python) Damien Mattei 2022-11-06 22:23 ` Speed " Hans Åberg 2022-11-06 22:35 ` Damien Mattei 2022-11-07 9:21 ` speed " Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 2022-11-07 13:23 ` Zelphir Kaltstahl 2022-11-09 14:24 ` Damien Mattei 2022-11-08 8:03 ` Linus Björnstam
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).