la, 2008-05-17 kello 00:39 +0900, David Cournapeau kirjoitti:

> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Anne Archibald

> <

[hidden email]> wrote:

>

> >

> > There are four benchmarks: add, multiply, dot, and solve. dot and

> > solve use BLAS, and for them numpy ruby and octave are comparable. Add

> > and multiply are much slower in numpy, but they are implemented in

> > numpy itself.

>

> The benchmark was done in 2005, and we do not know how it was done (no

> source). I don't know anything about ruby (that's my first ruby

> "program") but:

[clip]

The benchmark sources are in Narray's source directory.

I took a look and my conclusion is that the benchmark is simply flawed:

for Ruby, only user time is counted, while for Python, both user and

system times are counted. The code uses Python's time.clock() which

according to the documentation returns the CPU time (apparently user +

system). On the Ruby side it uses Process.times.utime which is the

elapsed user time.

Running the original tests as they are in NArray 0.5.9 yields (I took

representative ones from several runs. Eyeballing, the std between runs

appeared of the order of 0.1...0.2s):

### Numeric 24.2 (24.2-8ubuntu2)

### Narray 0.5.9 (0.5.9-2)

### numpy 1.0.4 (1:1.0.4-6ubuntu3)

###

### All of these from Ubuntu 8.04 packages.

$ time ruby mul.rb

a = NArray.float(1000000):

[ 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0,

12.0, ... ]

b = NArray.float(1000000):

[ 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0,

12.0, ... ]

calculating c = a*b ...

Time: 3.05 sec

real 0m5.039s

user 0m3.116s

sys 0m1.564s

Obviously, the reported time here is the user time only!

$ time python mul.py # the old Numeric

a.typecode: d , a.shape: (1000000,)

b.typecode: d , b.shape: (1000000,)

calculating c = a*b ...

Time: 6.020 sec

real 0m6.999s

user 0m4.308s

sys 0m2.164s

Whereas here it must be the sum of the user and system times!

Running tests for numpy and fixed time counting for Ruby:

$ time python mul_numpy.py # the new numpy

a.typecode: float64 , a.shape: (1000000,)

b.typecode: float64 , b.shape: (1000000,)

calculating c = a*b ...

Time: 4.580 sec

real 0m5.774s

user 0m3.352s

sys 0m1.996s

$ time ruby mul_correct.rb # using T.times.utime +

T.times.stime

a = NArray.float(1000000):

[ 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0,

12.0, ... ]

b = NArray.float(1000000):

[ 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0,

12.0, ... ]

calculating c = a*b ...

Time: 4.57 sec

real 0m5.045s

user 0m3.060s

sys 0m1.620s

I think this shows that there is no discernible difference between the

performance of numpy and Ruby's NArray. Even though the performance of

numpy and NArray is indeed better than that of Numeric, the difference

is not as large as the original benchmark led to believe.

Benchmark files attached, in case someone wants to contest my analysis.

--

Pauli Virtanen

_______________________________________________

Numpy-discussion mailing list

[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion