From: Julian Leviston <julian@...>
Date: 2005-08-13T00:25:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Performance

The bottleneck is usually the database, tho... no? :-)

Read the ruby on rails book - and then you'll get some real-world- 
applications... take a look at basecamp - that's running with  
THOUSANDS of users... not sure how many concurrent... and it's all of  
one to two machines...

Julian.

On 13/08/2005, at 1:19 AM, Bradley Kite wrote:

> Those idioms are around 21 seconds each in Ruby.
>
> In perl, its 11 seconds to do this:
>
> for (0..94967295)
> {
>
> }
>
> The question is not so much about the run-time of a particular action,
> but (in a web-based environment, for example) its more to do with
> the number of concurrent users you can have without having to buy
> more hardware.
>
> --
> Brad.
>
> On 12/08/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Bradley Kite wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm a relatively new Ruby programmer, I am curious as to what  
>>> Ruby is
>>> trying to achieve that other scripting languages do not already  
>>> offer
>>> (Apart from the syntactic differences of yet another scripting
>>> language, that is).
>>> The reason I ask is that it must offer something that is worth a lot
>>> considering it runs twice as slowly as Perl (see below).
>>>
>>> I was also interested in comparing the performance of Ruby against
>>> something like Perl, and (although this test is VERY simple) thought
>>> that I'd benchmark
>>> a simple counter in both Ruby and Perl. The number that it counts to
>>> is arbitrary,
>>> I started with 4294967296 and kept reducing it because I got  
>>> bored of
>>> waiting). Code is provided below.
>>>
>>> Any way, on a 3Ghz P4 CPU, I got the following results:
>>>
>>> Perl:
>>> real    0m24.569s
>>> user    0m24.499s
>>> sys     0m0.068s
>>>
>>> Ruby:
>>> real    0m57.218s
>>> user    0m57.108s
>>> sys     0m0.109s
>>>
>>> (Just out of interest I did it in C as well):
>>>
>>> (Average Run, non-optimised)
>>> real    0m0.142s
>>> user    0m0.136s
>>> sys     0m0.005s
>>>
>>> (Average Run, -O3 optimisations):
>>> real    0m0.074s
>>> user    0m0.070s
>>> sys     0m0.004s
>>>
>>> ##################################
>>>
>>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>> my $num = 0;
>>>
>>> while ($num < 94967295)
>>> {
>>>     $num += 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> ###############
>>>
>>> #!/usr/bin/ruby
>>> num = 0
>>>
>>> while num < 94967295 do
>>>     num += 1
>>> end
>>>
>>> ###############
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     int counter = 0;
>>>
>>>     while (counter < 94967295)
>>>     {
>>>         counter += 1;
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity: did you also benchmark these Ruby idioms  
>> (which I
>> regard more typical):
>>
>> 94967295.times do
>> end
>>
>> for i in 0..94967295 do
>> end
>>
>> 0.upto 94967295 do
>> end
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>    robert
>>
>
>