-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 398
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
performance regression #339
Comments
I'm having trouble reproducing this now. Maybe I did my "before" timings with julia 0.3, but I don't see any changes before and after d536d66. |
(Hopefully) we can close this? |
There's still an apparent performance regression compared with the times reported in #271. We should leave this open to investigate. |
Saw a good improvement from the new GC:
|
Was going to close this, but just reran
|
bisect? |
Yeah, won't be too fun |
For the record, I'm not seeing this on master v. release-0.9 v release-0.8:
|
My computer is easily 2x slower than yours. On release-0.8, julia 0.4 I get:
On release-0.10, julia 0.3, I get:
On release-0.10, julia 0.4, I get:
So 0.4 isn't helping |
Would be interesting to try one of the other ones, like macro.jl, that don't rely on printing stuff |
This benchmark doesn't have writing, |
|
So I'm not seeing anything nearly as dramatic, except for MIN on PMEDIAN BUILD, which is probably just due to the GC change. |
Just ran again today. With JuMP master and 0.4-rc3, I get:
Maybe my computer was having a bad day. This is much closer to my original "after" times in the original post. |
I guess we're going in circles. Let's close in favor of #42 |
d536d66 caused a performance regression in
speed2.jl
:before:
after:
This can be fixed by being a bit more careful about explicit AffExpr objects inside expressions, and then we can return to the mutating behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: