[Ecls-list] Performance comparison

[Robert Dodier]

On 6/29/08, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:

>  ECL (CVS 2008-06-29) compiled
>
>  real time : 52.687 secs
>  run time  : 48.530 secs
>  gc count  : 19 times
>  consed    : 37225311424 bytes
>
>  SBCL (Ubuntu, 1.0.11) compiled
>
>   48.823f0 seconds of real time
>   47.51f0 seconds of user run time
>   1.32f0 seconds of system run time
>   [Run times include 5.14f0 seconds GC run time.]
>   0 calls to %EVAL
>   0 page faults and
>   6,704,283,808 bytes consed.
>
>  CLISP (Ubuntu, 2.42) precompiled
>
>  Real time: 113.018524f0 sec.
>  Run time: 112.82f0 sec.
>  Space: 4154619032 Bytes
>  GC: 1193, GC time: 13.93f0 sec.
>
>  ECL (CVS, but interpreted)
>
>  real time : 295.618 secs
>  run time  : 276.920 secs
>  gc count  : 43 times
>  consed    : 428750282344 bytes

Results I have seen are broadly comparable ---
SBCL is faster, ECL compiled is a little slower, Clisp is much slower,
ECL interpreted is much, much slower. Sorry I don't have numbers.

Anyway being a little bit slower than SBCL is very good and
it is certainly fast enough to make ECL a workable option.

best

Robert Dodier