[racket] typed racket slow?

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz at arcor.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 06:19:27 -0400
> Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm seeing similar results on my end; I timed by first running "raco
> > make" on both files, then timing "racket" on both.  I think what
> > we're seeing is a small startup time cost on Typed Racket.  I ran a
> > longer benchmark and Typed Racket edges out untyped Racket if I run a
> > few million iterations (given this is such a short computation).  The
> > expressions I used are:
> >
> > ;; utest.rkt
> > (void
> >   (for/list {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]}
> >     (distance
> >       (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1))
> >       (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6)))))
> >
> > and
> >
> > ;; test.rkt
> > (void
> >   (for/list: : (Listof Float) {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]}
> >     (distance
> >       (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1))
> >       (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6)))))
> >
> >
> > I see just under 5 seconds for test.rkt and just over 5 seconds for
> > utest.rkt.  So there's a fraction of a second extra startup time for
> > Typed Racket, but it takes less time for each subsequent computation,
> > so the difference depends on how much "real" work you do after
> > startup.  I don't know what causes that startup cost, but hopefully
> > this kind of benchmark will be useful to the Typed Racket maintainers
> > in closing the gap for future versions.  So, thanks for the example,
> > Manfred!
> >
>
> Hi Carl,
> This is interesting. If I run it I have around 5 seconds for the typed
> version and around 4 seconds for the untyped version. My system is a
> 64bit Linux.
>
> --
> Manfred
>

What I ran was:

  raco make test.rkt utest.rkt && time racket test.rkt && time racket
utest.rkt

Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, does that give you the
same results you saw before?


> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Manfred Lotz
>  > <manfred.lotz at arcor.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there,
> > > I did a small test using typed racket.
> > >
> > > This is an example from the documentation:
> > >
> > > #lang typed/racket
> > > ;; test.rkt
> > >
> > > (struct: pt ([x : Float] [y : Float]))
> > >
> > > (: distance (pt pt -> Float))
> > > (define (distance p1 p2)
> > >   (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))
> > >            (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))
> > >
> > > (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))
> > >
> > > This is the untyped version:
> > > #lang racket
> > > ;; utest.rkt
> > >
> > > (struct pt (x y))
> > >
> > > (define (distance p1 p2)
> > >   (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))
> > >            (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))
> > >
> > > (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))
> > >
> > >
> > > Now running both:
> > > time racket test.rkt
> > > 4.675467891024383
> > > racket test.rkt  1.24s user 0.08s system 99% cpu 1.333 total
> > >
> > >
> > > time racket utest.rkt
> > > 4.675467891024383
> > > racket utest.rkt  0.22s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.248 total
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems the typed version needs a lot of time for the type
> > > checking. The time for time checking could be cut mostly by:
> > >
> > > raco exe test.rkt
> > > time ./test
> > > 4.675467891024383
> > > ./test  0.49s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.531 total
> > >
> > > But still runtime is more than twice as long. I could get the
> > > impression that typed racket is generally slower.
> > >
> > >
> > > Question: Is there any conclusion to be drawn from this (like that
> > > typed racket is slower than 'normal' racket)? Or is my test just a
> > > bad test?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Manfred
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130508/dbdbdcb7/attachment.html>