On 10/29/07, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you may also look at these data:
>
> 1,225,416 bytes allocated in the heap
> 152,984 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
> 8,448 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
> 86,808 bytes maximum residency (1 sample(s))
>
> 3 collections in generation 0 ( 0.00s)
> 1 collections in generation 1 ( 0.00s)
>
> if your hypothesis is true, amount of data copied and number of
> generation-1 collection should be much less in the second case
>
Indeed.
avg4:
880,935,612 bytes allocated in the heap
319,064,404 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
318,965,812 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
201,080,832 bytes maximum residency (9 sample(s))
1681 collections in generation 0 ( 1.67s)
9 collections in generation 1 ( 13.62s)
avgP:
1,761,224,604 bytes allocated in the heap
714,644 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
593,184 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
184,320 bytes maximum residency (2 sample(s))
1908 collections in generation 0 ( 0.04s)
2 collections in generation 1 ( 0.00s)
Allocation is cheap, copying expensive.
All the best,
/Josef
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
