<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 12/15/2010 05:48 PM, John Lato wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinNFcqqrBJGOzU2bHy-ckY9reRuxsPLib5GSLVB@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">From: Permjacov Evgeniy <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:permeakra@gmail.com">permeakra@gmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
current links<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://github.com/permeakra/Rank2Iteratee"
target="_blank">https://github.com/permeakra/Rank2Iteratee</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://github.com/permeakra/PassiveIteratee"
target="_blank">https://github.com/permeakra/PassiveIteratee</a><br>
<br>
The main difference from 'original' iteratees I read about is
that both<br>
do not use 'chunks' and pass data one-by-one. So, what I wrote
may be<br>
slower, but should be easier to maintain and more transparent
for ghc<br>
optimising facilities. I wanted as clean and simple code as
possible,<br>
but it is still very, very messy at some places and I want it
cleaner.<br>
Any suggestions? I also want to check, how good ghc does its
work with<br>
this messy modules. They may become interesting benchmarks.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Have you tried comparing it to either iteratee or
enumerator (which had mostly comparable performance last time
I checked, with a slight edge to iteratee)? Or to Oleg's
library? Try writing test cases, a simple byte-counting
application, or similar, so you can compare the performance
with the other versions. Both enumerator and iteratee include
demo programs that you could use as a starting point.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I wrote a simple counter (attached,works for both variants of
package), that literally counts bytes of given value in input. I got
three-time slower result then with lazy io ( 0_o) with rank2types
variant and six-seven time slower result with no CPS-version. Looks
like ghc is really good with list fusion... I'm still reading
tutorial from iteratee package, so I have not compared with it yet.
An equivalend lazy io programm attached. Can someone give an advice
how to improve performance? <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinNFcqqrBJGOzU2bHy-ckY9reRuxsPLib5GSLVB@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree that iteratees which work on a per-element level
are very clean and should be amenable to optimization by GHC.
It also shows a very clear relationship with stream-fusion
techniques. Unfortunately when I last tried it I couldn't get
acceptable performance. I was using ghc-6.12.1 IIRC, so it
could be different now.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>