News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by adgjlsfhk1 on Saturday May 13, 2023 @09:53PM (#35934625)
good news is 1.10 already is shaping up to be about 2x faster.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by ksec on Saturday May 13, 2023 @10:21PM (#35934775)
When is 1.10 expected? Just wondering I did a quick google and it seems a lot of the 1.9 improvement were back ported from 1.10? Or is that really 2x on top of current 1.9?
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by adgjlsfhk1 on Saturday May 13, 2023 @10:57PM (#35934943)
1.10 feature freeze is going to be in the next few weeks. after that it will be a few months depending on how much is required to fix all the bugs that have probably been introduced. 1.9 mostly doesn't shorten loading times (although weak dependencies end up helping a bit). 1.10 has had a bunch of load time optimization which became a lot more obvious once 1.9 got rid of all the stupid stuff. the exact speedups are package dependent, but 2x is a good estimate. some packages get a lot more, some are about the same.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by ksec on Sunday May 14, 2023 @12:19AM (#35935279)
Thanks. Exciting times for Julia!
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by shakow on Saturday May 13, 2023 @10:00PM (#35934669)
So ~0.85"?

Python is not compiled and start & load pandas (which is comparable to the libraries loaded in the article) in ~0.4" on my computer, and that's a notoriously slow language.

If I were to use e.g. Rust with polars, load time would be virtually none. And when I have to process ~50k different datasets, I can't afford 0.85" per file, which would translate to ~11 hours of overhead.

Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by adgjlsfhk1 on Saturday May 13, 2023 @10:14PM (#35934740)
It's not 0.85 per file. It's 0.85 for the 50k files combined.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by shakow on Saturday May 13, 2023 @10:25PM (#35934807)
No, because the program has to be run by slurm over several compute nodes, so it can't process them all at once.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by adgjlsfhk1 on Saturday May 13, 2023 @10:58PM (#35934950)
as long as you don't have 50k computers, it still should be 0.85 seconds per node which is still tiny.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by shakow on Sunday May 14, 2023 @05:22AM (#35936606)
> it still should be 0.85 seconds per node

No it's not, because I will not architecture my whole pipeline & program around Julia inability to start in a second, I will just use another language.

Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by pjmlp on Sunday May 14, 2023 @07:53AM (#35937303)
In good company, that is what Python folks do all the time.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by shakow on Sunday May 14, 2023 @09:28AM (#35937784)
Python does not take 1.7" to load pandas.
Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by pjmlp on Sunday May 14, 2023 @11:38AM (#35938779)
> I will just use another language.

Hello C, C++ and Fortran.

Re:Julia 1.9.0 lives up to its promise by Nanana909 on Sunday May 14, 2023 @11:29AM (#35938707)
> If I were to use e.g. Rust with polars, load time would be virtually none.

Because you're compiling...

And if you need to do the same in Julia, you should also pre-compile or some other method like https://github.com/dmolina/DaemonMode.jl (their demo shows loading a database, with subsequent loads after the first one taking roughly ~0.2% of the first)