From: Bradley Kite <bradley.kite@...>
Date: 2005-08-13T00:39:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Performance

Compared with - say - slashdot?

On 12/08/05, Julian Leviston <julian@coretech.net.au> wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>