Delivery-Date: 
Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Precedence: bulk
From: David Shepherd <des@uk.co.inmos>
Message-Id: <766.9301211128@frogland.inmos.co.uk>
Subject: Re: hol90 benchmark results
To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted (info-hol mailing list)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:28:54 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Mail Delivery Subsystem" at Jan 21, 93 11:28:03 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1262

Well, thanks to some help from Richard Boulton in getting some extra
data points (notably readings of hol v1.12 and v2.01 on the same system)
I have to report that my hol90 figures aren't quite as dramatic as
I had first reported.

Yes, they are still notably faster than anything I'd already got
benchmarked, but now that I have hol88 v2.01 figures I see that

1) SMLofNJ hol90 provides a 2.6x speed up over Allegro CL hol88 v1.12
2) Franz hol88 v2.01 provides a 2.3x speed up over Franz hol88 v1.12

I.e., if you have Allegro CL available then the two options are
probably much of a muchness - you may get 10-15% improvement under hol90.
However, this difference will probably be more dramatic if you
only have AKCL as AKCL is slower than ACL.

P.s. of course all the above must be gated by how relevant you think
my benchmark figures to be :-)

P.p.s. looks like my decision not to take the hassle of moving
from v1.12 to v2.0 was a mistake :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television
						      - Husbands and Wives