Graph.Tree vs Graph.PatriciaTree

[Thomas Bereknyei]

Ok, a little more comparison.  Same test (in seconds):

         Patricia tree                Tree
ghci       3.28                         4.24
compiled  2.0                        3.3
with O2    1.5                        2.6
-H256m    1.4                         2.3

This isn't bad.

-Tom


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Jorden Mauro <jrm8005 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Alp Mestanogullari <alpmestan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Indeed, but IIRC, it's more about space profiling, whereas Thomas seems to
>> be focusing on time performances for the moment.
>
> Good to know.
>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jorden Mauro <jrm8005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a profiler that comes with GHC, too.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Thomas Bereknyei <tomberek at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > For 10000 steps of 23 sigmoid neurons I unscientifically tested and
>>> > found that the PatriciaTree version takes half the time.
>>> >
>>> > Is there an easy way to time things in Haskell?
>>> >
>>> > -Tom
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Hnn mailing list
>>> > Hnn at projects.haskell.org
>>> > http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hnn
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hnn mailing list
>>> Hnn at projects.haskell.org
>>> http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hnn
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alp Mestanogullari
>> http://alpmestan.wordpress.com/
>> http://alp.developpez.com/
>>
>