Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0

Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0

[Brendan Tildesley]

 > Still far from the libgcrypt implementation in C + asm, but hey!

Actually guix hash is still a lot slower than using the sha256sum cli 
tool. For me 7x faster for the guile tarball, and 4x faster for a 700MiB 
file. Maybe because guile opens a file with it's ports and feeds it to 
libgcrypt. If guix is heavy relying on hashing files stored in the 
filesystem, maybe it would be better to directly use sha256sum or 
perhaps libgcrypt has a function do open a file and hash it on it's own?

Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Brendan Tildesley <mail@brendan.scot> skribis:

>> Still far from the libgcrypt implementation in C + asm, but hey!
>
> Actually guix hash is still a lot slower than using the sha256sum cli
> tool. For me 7x faster for the guile tarball, and 4x faster for a
> 700MiB file. Maybe because guile opens a file with it's ports and
> feeds it to libgcrypt. If guix is heavy relying on hashing files
> stored in the filesystem, maybe it would be better to directly use
> sha256sum or perhaps libgcrypt has a function do open a file and hash
> it on it's own?

We’d need to look at the specifics, but given that “guix hash
guile-2.2.6.tar.xz” takes less than 0.1s, the timing difference you see
between “guix hash” and “sha256sum” is likely due to the startup time of
the “guix” command.

Ludo’.