Re: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)
I am testing a Prolog interpreter written in Python. So fibonacci number routine is written in Prolog and I am running the fibonnaci number routine inside the Prolog interpreter that is written in Python. The factor 6x times faster of GraalVM can be reproduced also for other Prolog programs running inside the Prolog interpreter that is written in Python. I have a benchmark suite, where I get, the figures are milliseconds: TestStandardGraalVM Total170'996 28'523 This means the factor is: 170'996 / 28'523 = 5.9950 The test harness, test cases and individual results for all test cases are found here: And we could test GraalVM Python, results are from 14.09.2021, tested with Dogelog Runtime 0.9.5, Python Version: https://gist.github.com/jburse/f4e774ebb15cac722238b26b1a620f84#gistcomment-3892587 Terry Reedy wrote: On 9/13/2021 8:46 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote: The Standard Python version of Dogelog runtime is annoyingly slow. So we gave it a try with andother Python, and it was 6x times faster. We could test GraalVM. We worked around the missing match in Python 3.8 by replacing it with if-then-else. Performance is a little better, we find: /* Standard Python Version, Warm Run */ ?- time(fibo(23,X)). % Wall 3865 ms, gc 94 ms, 71991 lips X = 46368. /* GraalVM Python Version, Warm Warm Run */ ?- time(fibo(23,X)). % Wall 695 ms, gc 14 ms, 400356 lips X = 46368. See also: JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1437395917167112193 JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog You need to test more than fibonacci to make that claim. There is a benchmark test that times around 40 different similarly small benchmarks. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)
But even when using GraalVM Python, the execution is still slow. Much slower then the same Prolog interpreter written in JavaScript. For JavaScript node.exe I get much better results. I get these results comparing to a few other new Prolog systems as well: TestDogelog Scryer Trealla Total 442773251824 The test harness, test cases and individual results for all test cases are found here: Meanwhile could also test Trealla, results are from 12.09.2021, tested with Dogelog Runtime 0.9.5, JavaScript Version: https://gist.github.com/jburse/f4e774ebb15cac722238b26b1a620f84#gistcomment-3890013 But this is all only a moment in time. The Prolog interpreter itself is evolving, and the programming languages also, so this is a moving target. Benchmark results will look different tomorrow. Mostowski Collapse wrote: I am testing a Prolog interpreter written in Python. So fibonacci number routine is written in Prolog and I am running the fibonnaci number routine inside the Prolog interpreter that is written in Python. The factor 6x times faster of GraalVM can be reproduced also for other Prolog programs running inside the Prolog interpreter that is written in Python. I have a benchmark suite, where I get, the figures are milliseconds: Test Standard GraalVM Total 170'996 28'523 This means the factor is: 170'996 / 28'523 = 5.9950 The test harness, test cases and individual results for all test cases are found here: And we could test GraalVM Python, results are from 14.09.2021, tested with Dogelog Runtime 0.9.5, Python Version: https://gist.github.com/jburse/f4e774ebb15cac722238b26b1a620f84#gistcomment-3892587 Terry Reedy wrote: On 9/13/2021 8:46 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote: The Standard Python version of Dogelog runtime is annoyingly slow. So we gave it a try with andother Python, and it was 6x times faster. We could test GraalVM. We worked around the missing match in Python 3.8 by replacing it with if-then-else. Performance is a little better, we find: /* Standard Python Version, Warm Run */ ?- time(fibo(23,X)). % Wall 3865 ms, gc 94 ms, 71991 lips X = 46368. /* GraalVM Python Version, Warm Warm Run */ ?- time(fibo(23,X)). % Wall 695 ms, gc 14 ms, 400356 lips X = 46368. See also: JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1437395917167112193 JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog You need to test more than fibonacci to make that claim. There is a benchmark test that times around 40 different similarly small benchmarks. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)
Opinion: Anyone who is counting on Python for truly fast compute speed is probably using Python for the wrong purpose. Here, we use Python to control Test Equipment, to set up the equipment and ask for a measurement, get it, and proceed to the next measurement; and at the end produce a nice formatted report. If we wrote the test script in C or Rust or whatever it could not run substantially faster because it is communicating with the test equipment, setting it up and waiting for responses, and that is where the vast majority of the time goes. Especially if the measurement result requires averaging it can take a while. In my opinion this is an ideal use for Python, not just because the speed of Python is not important, but also because we can easily find people who know Python, who like coding in Python, and will join the company to program in Python ... and stay with us. --- Joseph S. Teledyne Confidential; Commercially Sensitive Business Data -Original Message- From: Mostowski Collapse Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021) I am testing a Prolog interpreter written in Python. So fibonacci number routine is written in Prolog and I am running the fibonnaci number routine inside the Prolog interpreter that is written in Python. The factor 6x times faster of GraalVM can be reproduced also for other Prolog programs running inside the Prolog interpreter that is written in Python. I have a benchmark suite, where I get, the figures are milliseconds: TestStandardGraalVM Total170'996 28'523 This means the factor is: 170'996 / 28'523 = 5.9950 The test harness, test cases and individual results for all test cases are found here: And we could test GraalVM Python, results are from 14.09.2021, tested with Dogelog Runtime 0.9.5, Python Version: https://gist.github.com/jburse/f4e774ebb15cac722238b26b1a620f84#gistcomment-3892587 Terry Reedy wrote: > On 9/13/2021 8:46 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote: >> The Standard Python version of Dogelog runtime is annoyingly slow. So >> we gave it a try with andother Python, and it was 6x times faster. >> >> We could test GraalVM. We worked around the missing match in Python >> 3.8 by replacing it with if-then-else. >> Performance is a little better, we find: >> >> /* Standard Python Version, Warm Run */ >> ?- time(fibo(23,X)). >> % Wall 3865 ms, gc 94 ms, 71991 lips >> X = 46368. >> >> /* GraalVM Python Version, Warm Warm Run */ >> ?- time(fibo(23,X)). >> % Wall 695 ms, gc 14 ms, 400356 lips >> X = 46368. >> >> See also: >> >> JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python >> https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1437395917167112193 >> >> JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog > > You need to test more than fibonacci to make that claim. There is a > benchmark test that times around 40 different similarly small benchmarks. > > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
