Performance of Ruby 1.9 vs. Ruby 1.8 (was: Speed sprint)
in [Ruby]
|
From: Jörg W Mittag on 23 Feb 2010 08:43 Alexander Jesner wrote: > On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote: >> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there. > If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9. I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8 repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in that. jwm
From: Chuck Remes on 23 Feb 2010 09:34 On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jörg W Mittag wrote: > Alexander Jesner wrote: >> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote: >>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there. >> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9. > > I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8 > repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible > evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio > Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any > evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in > that. Are you looking at the same benchmarks and charts that I am? http://antoniocangiano.com/category/ruby-benchmark-suite/ This clearly shows that 1.9.1 is consistently and measurably faster than 1.8 in nearly every benchmark. My own experience proves this out too. I am a recent convert to 1.9.1 after I discovered that it ran *all* of my scripts at least 50% faster than 1.8.7. Between 1.9.1 and JRuby I am loving my ruby performance lately. I am also tracking Rubinius closely; it is very fast but its performance is less consistent than MRI and JRuby so far. cr
From: Benoit Daloze on 23 Feb 2010 09:43 2010/2/23 Jörg W Mittag <JoergWMittag+Ruby(a)googlemail.com<JoergWMittag%2BRuby(a)googlemail.com> > > Alexander Jesner wrote: > > On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote: > >> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there. > > If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9. > > I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8 > repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible > evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio > Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any > evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in > that. > > jwm > > Hi, "I have *never* seen" Maybe you didn't look enough. Anyway, I think there are plenty of benchmarks ... Test yourself and you'll see. I think it's most of the time faster or equal in Ruby 1.9. There is a reason for this speed improvement, I let you search it. You mention usual Antonio Cangiano Benchmarks: http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/02/19/ruby-implementations-shootout-ruby-vs-yarv-vs-jruby-vs-gardens-point-ruby-net-vs-rubinius-vs-cardinal/ Well, there is a long time I keep traces of these benchmarks: MBP => MacBookPro, 2x2.26GHz, 2Go P => patchlevel R => revision T => trunk Time Computer OS 32/64bit RubyVersion 0.684 MBP Mac 64 1.9.2 2010-01-14 T 26319 0.836 MBP Lin 32 1.9.2 2009-07-18 T 24186 0.899 MBP Mac 32 1.9.2 2009-11-04 T 25635 1.719 MBP Win 32 1.9.2 2009-07-18 1.850 MBP Mac 32 1.8.6 2008-08-11 P 287 2.000 MBP Mac 32 1.8.7 2009-12-24 P 248 2.406 MBP Win 32 1.9.1 2009-01-30 R 21907 2.937 MBP Win 32 1.8.6 2007-09-24 P 111 If that is not clear ... All 1.9.2 are faster(more than 2 times here). The only exception is probably due to better implementation of 1.8 on Mac than Windows (the 1.9.1 is probably an early version too). Regards, B.D.
From: Michael Brooks on 25 Feb 2010 02:25 > Alexander Jesner wrote: >> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote: >>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there. >> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9. > > I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8 > repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible > evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio > Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any > evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in > that. > > Jörg W Mittag Hello Jörg: I found this interesting: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all It shows averaged scores of Ruby 1.8.7 (the Ruby MRI) vs Ruby 1.9.1 and vs a whole bunch of other languages. Michael
From: Douglas Seifert on 25 Feb 2010 19:48
My own "real world" benchmark comparing 1.9 to 1.8: http://www.dseifert.net/archive/2009-11/ -Doug Seifert On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Michael Brooks <michael.brooks(a)shaw.ca>wrote: > Alexander Jesner wrote: >> >>> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote: >>> >>>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there. >>>> >>> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9. >>> >> >> I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8 >> repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible >> evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio >> Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any >> evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in >> that. >> >> Jörg W Mittag >> > > Hello Jörg: > > I found this interesting: > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all > > It shows averaged scores of Ruby 1.8.7 (the Ruby MRI) vs Ruby 1.9.1 and vs > a whole bunch of other languages. > > Michael > > > |