diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'tests/bench/transactional/results.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | tests/bench/transactional/results.md | 9 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/tests/bench/transactional/results.md b/tests/bench/transactional/results.md index 4a58800ec..7d66ffe60 100644 --- a/tests/bench/transactional/results.md +++ b/tests/bench/transactional/results.md @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Three alternatives: Two benchmarks: - `ImplicitMono`: all calls are monomorphic - - `IplicitMega` : about half of the calls are (4-way) megamorphic, + - `ImplicitMega` : about half of the calls are (4-way) megamorphic, the others are monomorphic. ### Results @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ are no megamorphic targets). Specializing everything incurs about a 14% performance hit (maybe due to the extra code generated; it's hard to pin down what it is). -Note: We compaute relative performance differences by comparing the +Note: We compute relative performance differences by comparing the second-best test runs of each series with each other. In the megamorphic benchmark, it's the other way round. @@ -57,13 +57,14 @@ everything leads to another 37% improvement (85% total compared to no specialization). I think we need larger benchmarks to decide whether we should -specicialize mono-morphic call-targets or not. +specicialize monomorphic call-targets or not. ### Comparing with the Reader Monad -Translating `ImplicitMega` to the reader monad, gives the following runtimes: +Translating `ImplicitMega` to the reader monad gives the following runtimes: | Reader | +|---------| | 11563ms | | 11108ms | | 11300ms | |