[Stackless] verify my performance numbers?

[Taylor Boon]

Here are some more numbers:

threaded version: 72.5s, 73.6s, 73.5s
stackless version: 8.0s, 8.0s, 7.9s
low-level SAX interface: 3.8s, 3.2s, 3.2s

The file I used was also my iTunes library: 10,547,041 bytes with 381822 
calls to startElement.

These numbers were generated in Windows XP Pro SP2 on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 
4200+ with Python 2.5 Stackless 3.1b3.

These number seem to validate the numbers you generated, although the 
disparity between threaded and stackless seems to much greater under Windows 
(at least under Windows on my particular hardware...). I had to run the 
threaded and stackless tests a couple of more times just to verify that the 
difference is almost an order of magnitude.

Regards,
Taylor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Dalke" <dalke at dalkescientific.com>
To: <stackless at stackless.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:42 PM
Subject: verify my performance numbers?


> Hi all,
>
>   I'm looking for someone to double check my timing findings on
> other OSes.  In short, stackless has 1/10th of the overhead for
> this task than using threads but I don't know how OS-specific
> that is.
>
>   I'm working on my presentation for PyCon.  I'm giving an
> intro to Stackless talk.  I'm about 1/2 way through my rough
> draft version -- text only, not in slide format, etc.  I compared
> using Stackless to using threads for the same task, which is
> to invert a callback solution (parsing XML using SAX) into an
> iterator solution.
>
>   In doing the testing now I found (using best of 3):
>
> threaded version: 93 seconds (94.9s, 94.5s, 93.1s)
> stackless version: 20 seconds (20.8s, 19.9s, 20.4s)
> low-level SAX interface: 8.4 seconds  (8.36s, 8.57s, 8.49s)
>
> About 1 second of the stackless version is spent in
> constructing the message to send through the channel
> and the function call overhead.
>
> About 3/4 seconds is spent in the termination test
> for endDocument.  (I got about 0.7 seconds by switching
> to use an 'is' test instead of a data[0] == "endDocument")
>
> My test data set was my iTunes library file listing all
> of my songs.  It is 6,050,866 bytes with 223,075 calls
> each of startElement, characters and endElement, plus one
> call each of startDocument and endDocument.  That makes
> for 669,227*2 context switches.
>
> I'm happy, and a bit surprised, that the stackless vs.
> thread solutions are that big.  Would some here care
> to re-test my code and verify that for me?
>
> I tested this on a Mac PowerBook G4 running 10.3 and would
> like to see number for other OSes/thread implementations.
>
> The programs are:
>
> 1) itersax_stackless.py -- the inverted solution using stackless
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2011 (20070127) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
>
>
> 2) itersax_threads.py -- the inverted solution using threading.py
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2011 (20070127) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
>
> 3) callback_sax.py -- the standard callback solution
>     (uncomment a line towards the end to get the version which
>      adds the overhead for constructing the message tuple and
>      doing the function call overhead.)
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2011 (20070127) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
>
> I would like to see the program output (an elapsed time) for
> each program run 3 times on your machine.  You'll have to point
> to a local XML file.  Just pick a comparable large one and let
> me know the rough size and number of elements in it.  Or I can
> send you my iTunes index and you can find out what I listen to.  :)
>
>
> Andrew
> dalke at dalkescientific.com
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2011 (20070127) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2011 (20070127) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
> 


_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless