[darcs-users] darcs patch: add exception to haskell_policy.sh for D... (and 61 more)

Don Stewart dons at galois.com
Thu Oct 30 20:29:59 UTC 2008

> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 07:50:32PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:30:12 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > > I want to see benchmarks too, but I thought I would justify why we
> > > expect this to be no slower than the previous code...Everything below
> > > is stuff that we discussed during the Sprint.
> > 
> > Well, attached is a second set of comparative timing tests, sorry, only
> > run once and with no nice output yet.  Hopefully you can use a graphical
> > diff tool to do side by side comparison.
> > 
> > A nice little summariser script, maybe using the Haskell tabular
> > library might be handy
> I've run my own set of timings, which give considerably more dramatic
> differences than yours show, perhaps because I ran my tests on large
> repositories?
> I'll summarize my results up here, but you can look below for a more
> verbose summary.  The new code is almost always faster by my reckoning, and
> often *much* faster (as much as a factor of three!).
> I do, however, observe a performance regression on darcs annotate Setup.hs
> (run in the darcs repository).  It's a small regression (smaller than
> Eric's tests show), but reproducible.  And it's all the more striking given
> the dramatic improvement the new code shows in all the other tests, which
> suggest there may be a single function that has a large performance
> regression (since it seems likely that parts of the annotate command have
> been sped up in the new version).  I don't have the time or inclination to
> track down this issue, but I do hope Don is interested enough to look into
> it!


If someone tells me what is slow, or how to reproduce these numbers,
I can track them down. If it turns out doing more bytestring thinking
would be beneficial, I'm happy to help.

-- Don

More information about the darcs-users mailing list