[#13161] hacking on the "heap" implementation in gc.c — Lloyd Hilaiel <lloyd@...>

Hi all,

16 messages 2007/11/01

[#13182] Thinking of dropping YAML from 1.8 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello all.

14 messages 2007/11/03

[#13315] primary encoding and source encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

I've got a couple of questions about the handling of primary encoding.

29 messages 2007/11/08
[#13331] Re: primary encoding and source encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/09

Hi,

[#13368] method names in 1.9 — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

61 messages 2007/11/10
[#13369] Re: method names in 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/10

Hi,

[#13388] Re: method names in 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/11/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#13403] Re: method names in 1.9 — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/11/11

On 11/11/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:

[#13410] Re: method names in 1.9 — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/11/11

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#13413] Re: method names in 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/11/11

David Flanagan wrote:

[#13423] Re: method names in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...> 2007/11/12

Summing it up:

[#13386] Re: method names in 1.9 — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/11

[#13391] Re: method names in 1.9 — Matthew Boeh <mboeh@...> 2007/11/11

On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:50:18PM +0900, Trans wrote:

[#13457] mingw rename — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>

Currently for different windows' builds, the names for RUBY_PLATFORM

13 messages 2007/11/13

[#13485] Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Good morning all together!

23 messages 2007/11/14
[#13486] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/11/14

A nicer version may be...

[#13488] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/14

[#13495] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/14

[#13498] state of threads in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...>

Are Threads mapped to threads on the underlying operating system in

30 messages 2007/11/14
[#13519] Re: state of threads in 1.9 — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...> 2007/11/14

[#13526] Re: state of threads in 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/11/14

On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:18 , Bill Kelly wrote:

[#13528] test/unit and miniunit — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

When is the 1.9 freeze?

17 messages 2007/11/14

[#13564] Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Good evening all together!

53 messages 2007/11/15
[#13575] Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/11/15

On Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner <ed.odanow@wonado.de> wro=

[#13578] Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2007/11/16

Nikolai Weibull schrieb:

[#13598] wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13605] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/16

[#13612] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13624] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/11/16

On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#13632] Re: wondering about #tap — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/11/16

David A. Black wrote:

[#13634] Re: wondering about #tap — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13636] Re: wondering about #tap — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2007/11/16

On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#13637] Re: wondering about #tap — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/11/16

Rick DeNatale wrote:

[#13640] Re: wondering about #tap — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/11/16

murphy schrieb:

[#13614] Suggestion for native thread tests — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...>

Hi!

12 messages 2007/11/16

[#13685] Problems with \M-x in utf-8 encoded strings — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Hi!

11 messages 2007/11/18

[#13741] retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

In 1.8, I could write:

46 messages 2007/11/23
[#13742] Re: retry semantics changed — "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...> 2007/11/23

On Nov 23, 2007 12:06 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:

[#13743] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

[#13746] Re: retry semantics changed — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/23

Hi,

[#13747] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

[#13748] Re: retry semantics changed — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/23

Hi,

[#13749] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

Re: performance problem in 1.9

From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2007-11-06 20:49:46 UTC
List: ruby-core #13246
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:22:19AM +0900, murphy wrote:
> Paul Brannan wrote:
> > I tried running 1.9 with -Ka and got the same results.
> this is because the new encoding-aware methods are not optimized for
> ASCII. it's really an issue. people expect Ruby 1.9 to be faster, not
> slower.
> [murphy]

This doesn't explain, however, why execution duration increases
non-linearly with respect to number of lines read.  Even in a non-ascii
encoding I wouldn't expect this behavior.

For another experiment, I reverted to 20070824, which is before
encoding.c was added, and re-ran the test:

N        1.8         1.9
1000     0.087897    0.053321
2000     0.131613    0.097194
3000     0.211627    0.147591
4000     0.256672    0.195254
5000     0.318637    0.24071
6000     0.399293    0.303332
7000     0.453675    0.340333
8000     0.533178    0.378996
9000     0.637222    0.458902
10000    0.746804    0.490422
20000    1.370529    1.017592
30000    2.2133      1.700587
40000    2.843482    2.385207
50000    3.413713    2.902308
60000    4.144835    3.68966
70000    4.923352    4.457369
80000    5.647614    5.343812
90000    6.537824    6.248752
100000   7.245902    7.046532
200000   13.818056   18.446034
300000   20.71837    34.295005
400000   27.073161   53.57605
500000   34.938478   79.189373

So I still suspect that this is not related to M17N.

I can also comment out the body of the while loop and get similar results:

[pbrannan@zem tmp]$ cat test.rb
t = Time.now
while line = $stdin.gets do
end
print "#{(Time.now - t).to_f} "

N        1.8         1.9
1000     0.003087    0.007534    
2000     0.005437    0.01018     
3000     0.011527    0.011794    
4000     0.016189    0.010016    
5000     0.018974    0.020079    
6000     0.017216    0.021615    
7000     0.025385    0.017993    
8000     0.02577     0.023702    
9000     0.027658    0.022724    
10000    0.030802    0.034038    
20000    0.079975    0.062713    
30000    0.109732    0.072577    
40000    0.132026    0.09485     
50000    0.195151    0.119758    
60000    0.24444     0.132599    
70000    0.237653    0.158722    
80000    0.289722    0.185829    
90000    0.302497    0.204738    
100000   0.381064    0.233099    
200000   0.712633    0.477481    
300000   1.085363    0.751782    
400000   1.423243    1.008157    
500000   1.804591    1.331532    
1000000  3.547251    2.917445    
5000000  18.105158   30.337461   
6000000  21.327796   41.172421 

So maybe the problem is in IO#gets?  But I don't see any differences
there that would cause this behavior.

Paul


In This Thread