The calculation of clauses per second made by rexxcps.nrx is not aligned with rexxcps.rex #64
Comments
|
ok, rexxcps.nrx
but then you are dividing microseconds to seconds, not nanoseconds to seconds. A nanosecond is still 10E-9 seconds. Can you check in your fixed version? We might have to ask Mike, who never published the NetRexx version himself because it felt odd to have such a large discrepancy.
best regards,
René.
… On 6 Jul 2024, at 11:47, jlfaucher ***@***.***> wrote:
Tests made after applying the workaround for #63 <#63>
(using the file rexxcps_fixed.nrx which is a copy of rexxcps.nrx where I renamed the variables 'source' and 'version')
I get these numbers on my laptop:
18_407_194_702_387 NetRexx clauses per second -- netrexx compiled: nrc rexxcps_fixed; java rexxcps_fixed
302_886_536_330 NetRexx clauses per second -- netrexx interpreted: nrc -exec rexxcps_fixed.nrx
23_736_393 REXX clauses per second -- oorexx: rexx rexxcps.rex
The difference with oorexx is stunning...
After comparing the sources, I think there is an error in rexxcps.nrx
rexxcps.nrx:
fempty=empty/averaging
ffull=full/averaging
looptime=(ffull-fempty)/(count*1000000000) -- 1 000 000 000 for nanosecs->secs
cps = (1000000000/looptime+0.5) -- error? should be 1000/looptime+0.5
rexxcps.rex:
empty=empty/averaging
full=full/averaging
looptime=(full-empty)/count
say' Performance:' format(1000/looptime,,0) 'REXX clauses per second'
If I use 1000/looptime, I get:
Performance: 19_580_824 NetRexx clauses per second -- netrexx compiled
Performance: 301_796 NetRexx clauses per second -- netrexx interpreted
which is of the same order of magnitude as rexxcps.rex
Detailed output for rexxcps.nrx compiled
sh> nrc rexxcps_fixed
NetRexx portable processor 4.06-GA build 152-20240304-0612
Copyright (c) RexxLA, 2011,2024. All rights reserved.
Parts Copyright (c) IBM Corporation, 1995,2008.
Program rexxcps_fixed.nrx
function subroutine(Rexx,Rexx)
function formatThousands(Rexx)
Compilation of 'rexxcps_fixed.nrx' successful
Duration: 0.609579
sh> java rexxcps_fixed
----- REXXCPS 2.1n -- Measuring NetRexx clauses/second -----
NetRexx version is: NetRexx 4.06 03 Mar 2024
System is: Java
Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations
Total (full DO): 0.00510703743 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations)
Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0000510703743 seconds
Performance: 19_580_824 NetRexx clauses per second
( 19.581E+6 cps)
Duration: 0.588406
Detailed output for rexxcps.nrx interpreted
sh> nrc -exec rexxcps_fixed.nrx
NetRexx portable processor 4.06-GA build 152-20240304-0612
Copyright (c) RexxLA, 2011,2024. All rights reserved.
Parts Copyright (c) IBM Corporation, 1995,2008.
Program rexxcps_fixed.nrx
function subroutine(Rexx,Rexx)
function formatThousands(Rexx)
===== Exec: rexxcps_fixed =====
----- REXXCPS 2.1n -- Measuring NetRexx clauses/second -----
NetRexx version is: NetRexx 4.06 03 Mar 2024
System is: Java
Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations
Total (full DO): 0.33134968507 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations)
Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0033134968507 seconds
Performance: 301_796 NetRexx clauses per second
( 301.796E+3 cps)
Processing of 'rexxcps_fixed.nrx' complete
Duration: 33.517014
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#64>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3WJQO6SXQTEVWQOUD333LZK64LZAVCNFSM6AAAAABKOJFVHOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGM4TGNBZGYYTINA>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
|
|
ah I see what you mean - because we measure a loop of 1000 iterations. Would be good if more people had a look at this.
René
… On 6 Jul 2024, at 11:47, jlfaucher ***@***.***> wrote:
Tests made after applying the workaround for #63 <#63>
(using the file rexxcps_fixed.nrx which is a copy of rexxcps.nrx where I renamed the variables 'source' and 'version')
I get these numbers on my laptop:
18_407_194_702_387 NetRexx clauses per second -- netrexx compiled: nrc rexxcps_fixed; java rexxcps_fixed
302_886_536_330 NetRexx clauses per second -- netrexx interpreted: nrc -exec rexxcps_fixed.nrx
23_736_393 REXX clauses per second -- oorexx: rexx rexxcps.rex
The difference with oorexx is stunning...
After comparing the sources, I think there is an error in rexxcps.nrx
rexxcps.nrx:
fempty=empty/averaging
ffull=full/averaging
looptime=(ffull-fempty)/(count*1000000000) -- 1 000 000 000 for nanosecs->secs
cps = (1000000000/looptime+0.5) -- error? should be 1000/looptime+0.5
|
|
Hi René Please find attached the file rexxcps_fixed.nrx that I use for testing. The interpreted rexxcps.nrx takes about 32 seconds, but it has 12,760 times the number of clauses compared to oorexx which runs in about 0.5 seconds. The ratio for the compiled rexxcps.nrx versus oorexx is 775484. Not asking to modify rexxcps.nrx, I wanted just to share my astonishment. |
|
When I said rexxcps cannot be changed, I did not mean the NetRexx version. Will change the repository version to form the base of further research. Thank you very much for your effort! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Tests made after applying the workaround for #63
(using the file rexxcps_fixed.nrx which is a copy of rexxcps.nrx where I renamed the variables 'source' and 'version')
I get these numbers on my laptop:
The difference with oorexx is stunning...
After comparing the sources, I think there is an error in rexxcps.nrx
If I use 1000/looptime, I get:
which is of the same order of magnitude as rexxcps.rex
Detailed output for rexxcps.nrx compiled
Detailed output for rexxcps.nrx interpreted
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: