Re:How low can you go? Ultra low latency Java in the real wo...
by igouy on Saturday December 22, 2018 @11:24AM
(#18741172)
> That's the source of the discrepancy on n-body…
You made that claim before, and I showed you the Rust n-body program "vector instructions using SIMD" contributed 5 months ago.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
Edit: the correct URL is https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/....
Re:How low can you go? Ultra low latency Java in the real wo...
by steveklabnik on Sunday December 23, 2018 @11:57AM
(#18747073)
Which one of those is the right one? Number 5?
It shows 0.48 seconds, and 2 seconds, but https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... shows 13.27. Why isn't that one on the main page?
Re:How low can you go? Ultra low latency Java in the real wo...
by igouy on Sunday December 23, 2018 @01:03PM
(#18747381)
> Which one of those is the right one? Number 5?
HN have now corrected the URL, as I asked.
> It shows 0.48 seconds, and 2 seconds
It shows 3 different workloads:
secs N
0.48 500,000
2.01 5,000,000
20.09 50,000,000
Which we can see is the time for `n-body #2` at the largest workload:
secs N
0.54 500,000
1.33 5,000,000
13.27 50,000,000
I don't know which you consider to be the "main page".
We can see that measurements for `n-body #2` are shown on both:
faster/rust.html
measurements/rust.html
Re:How low can you go? Ultra low latency Java in the real wo...
by steveklabnik on Monday December 24, 2018 @09:49AM
(#18752348)
Okay, I see now. It's about the three different measurements. Thank you!
Yeah, a lot of those would be faster now, because SIMD was stabilized. That's the source of the discrepancy on n-body, for example. I don't think anyone has bothered to really submit new implementations.
Most bounds checks can be hoisted out of the compiler can’t figure it out on its own via asserts. In general it’s not a huge problem in real-world code.