[Shootout-list] Directions of various benchmarks

[Isaac Gouy]

--- Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > fasta (new)
> Most of the time is spent in the random number generator = number
> crunching.

Which programs did you profile? 


> > k-nucleotide (new)
> Most of the time is spent hashing strings = array-based number
> crunching.

Which programs did you profile? 


> > pidigits
> 
> Arbitrary-precision integers = arrays
> arithmetic over them = number crunching

Seems like we're saying computer memory is a big array, and a CPU does
number crunching?



> > reverse-complement (new)
> 
> If this didn't take an immeasurably small time to run then it would
> be IO bound.
> 
> > tcp-echo (new)
> > tcp-request-reply (new)
> > tcp-stream (new)
> > threads
> > threads-flow
> 
> Yes, I always disregard these benchmarks.

Oh well.


> You also missed implicitode. That is obviously number crunching.

And not accepted, unlike spectral-norm which is fp number crunching and
a new benchmark.


> To the best of my knowledge the informal <100LOC of C#/Java rule has 
> prohibited the use of non-trivial data structures in all of the
> benchmarks as they are intractable to implement in those languages.
My
> interpretation of the OP is that he would like to see more benchmarks
> which spend their time rebalancing trees. I agree. The OCaml
> implementation of my "nth" benchmark will do this.


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail