[pypy-svn] r60650 - pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009

antocuni at codespeak.net antocuni at codespeak.net
Sat Dec 20 18:33:23 CET 2008


Author: antocuni
Date: Sat Dec 20 18:33:21 2008
New Revision: 60650

Modified:
   pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex
   pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/main.tex
Log:
refactor tables



Modified: pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex
==============================================================================
--- pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex	(original)
+++ pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex	Sat Dec 20 18:33:21 2008
@@ -87,60 +87,41 @@
 \end{lstlisting}
 }
 
-\anto{these tables are ugly}
-
-\cfbolz{can we make one figure of all the tables?}
 \begin{table}[ht]
-  \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r||r|r|}
-    \hline
-    \textbf{n} & 
-    \textbf{Interp} &
-    \textbf{JIT} &
-    \textbf{JIT 2} &
-    \textbf{C\#} &
-    \textbf{Interp/JIT 2} &
-    \textbf{JIT 2/C\#} \\
-    \hline
+  \begin{center}
 
-    $10$    &   0.031  &  0.422  &  0.000  &  0.000  &      N/A  &    N/A \\
-    $10^7$  &  30.984  &  0.453  &  0.047  &  0.031  &  661.000  &  1.500 \\
-    $10^8$  &     N/A  &  0.859  &  0.453  &  0.359  &      N/A  &  1.261 \\
-    $10^9$  &     N/A  &  4.844  &  4.641  &  3.438  &      N/A  &  1.350 \\
+  \begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrr}
+    \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Factorial}} \\ [0.5ex]
 
+    \textbf{$n$}          & $10$  & $10^7$           & $10^8$         & $10^9$         \\
     \hline
+    \textbf{Interp}       & 0.031 & 30.984           & N/A            & N/A            \\
+    \textbf{JIT}          & 0.422 &  0.453           & 0.859          & 4.844          \\
+    \textbf{JIT 2}        & 0.000 &  0.047           & 0.453          & 4.641          \\
+    \textbf{C\#}          & 0.000 &  0.031           & 0.359          & 3.438          \\
+    \textbf{Interp/JIT 2} & N/A   & \textbf{661.000} & N/A            & N/A            \\
+    \textbf{JIT 2/C\#}    & N/A   & \textbf{1.500}   & \textbf{1.261} & \textbf{1.350} \\ [3ex]
 
-  \end{tabular}
-  \caption{Factorial benchmark}
-  \label{tab:factorial}
-\end{table}
 
+    \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Fibonacci}} \\ [0.5ex]
 
-\begin{table}[ht]
-  \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r||r|r|}
-    \hline
-    \textbf{n} & 
-    \textbf{Interp} &
-    \textbf{JIT} &
-    \textbf{JIT 2} &
-    \textbf{C\#} &
-    \textbf{Interp/JIT 2} &
-    \textbf{JIT 2/C\#} \\
+    \textbf{$n$}          & $10$  & $10^7$           & $10^8$         & $10^9$         \\
     \hline
-
-    $10$    &   0.031  &  0.453  &  0.000  &  0.000  &       N/A  &  N/A   \\
-    $10^7$  &  29.359  &  0.469  &  0.016  &  0.016  &  1879.962  &  0.999 \\
-    $10^8$  &     N/A  &  0.688  &  0.250  &  0.234  &       N/A  &  1.067 \\
-    $10^9$  &     N/A  &  2.953  &  2.500  &  2.453  &       N/A  &  1.019 \\
-
-    \hline
-
+    \textbf{Interp}       & 0.031 & 29.359           & 0.000          & 0.000          \\
+    \textbf{JIT}          & 0.453 &  0.469           & 0.688          & 2.953          \\
+    \textbf{JIT 2}        & 0.000 &  0.016           & 0.250          & 2.500          \\ 
+    \textbf{C\#}          & 0.000 &  0.016           & 0.234          & 2.453          \\
+    \textbf{Interp/JIT 2} & N/A   & \textbf{1879.962}& N/A            & N/A            \\
+    \textbf{JIT 2/C\#}    & N/A   & \textbf{0.999}   & \textbf{1.067} & \textbf{1.019} \\
   \end{tabular}
-  \caption{Fibonacci benchmark}
-  \label{tab:fibo}
+
+  \end{center}
+  \caption{Factorial and Fibonacci benchmarks}
+  \label{tab:factorial-fibo}
 \end{table}
 
 
-Tables \ref{tab:factorial} and \ref{tab:fibo} show the seconds spent to calculate
+Table \ref{tab:factorial-fibo} shows the seconds spent to calculate
 the factorial and Fibonacci for various $n$.  As we can see, for small values
 of $n$ the time spent running the JIT compiler is much higher than the time
 spent to simply interpret the program.  This is an expected result, as till
@@ -221,34 +202,34 @@
 doing additions in-place.
 
 \begin{table}[ht]
-  \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r||r|r|}
-    \hline
-    \textbf{n} & 
-    \textbf{Interp} &
-    \textbf{JIT} &
-    \textbf{JIT 2} &
-    \textbf{C\#} &
-    \textbf{Interp/JIT 2} &
-    \textbf{JIT 2/C\#} \\
-    \hline
+  \begin{center}
 
-    $10$    &   0.031  &  0.453  &  0.000  &  0.000  &      N/A  &  N/A   \\
-    $10^7$  &  43.063  &  0.516  &  0.047  &  0.063  &  918.765  &  0.750 \\
-    $10^8$  &     N/A  &  0.875  &  0.453  &  0.563  &      N/A  &  0.806 \\
-    $10^9$  &     N/A  &  4.188  &  3.672  &  5.953  &      N/A  &  0.617 \\
+  \begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrr}
+    \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Accumulator}} \\ [0.5ex]
 
+    \textbf{$n$}          & $10$  & $10^7$           & $10^8$         & $10^9$         \\
     \hline
+    \textbf{Interp}       & 0.031 & 43.063           & N/A            & N/A            \\
+    \textbf{JIT}          & 0.453 &  0.516           & 0.875          & 4.188          \\
+    \textbf{JIT 2}        & 0.000 &  0.047           & 0.453          & 3.672          \\
+    \textbf{C\#}          & 0.000 &  0.063           & 0.563          & 5.953          \\
+    \textbf{Interp/JIT 2} & N/A   & \textbf{918.765} & N/A            & N/A            \\
+    \textbf{JIT 2/C\#}    & N/A   & \textbf{0.750}   & \textbf{0.806} & \textbf{0.617} \\
 
   \end{tabular}
+  \end{center}
   \caption{Accumulator benchmark}
   \label{tab:accumulator}
 \end{table}
 
 
+
+
+
 Table \ref{tab:accumulator} show the results for the benchmark.  Again, we can
 see that the speedup of the JIT over the interpreter is comparable to the
 other two benchmarks.  However, the really interesting part is the comparison
-with the equivalent C\# code, as the code generated by the JIT is
+with the equivalent C\# code, as the code generated by the JIT is up to 1.62 times
 \textbf{faster}.
 
 Probably, the C\# code is slower because:

Modified: pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/main.tex
==============================================================================
--- pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/main.tex	(original)
+++ pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/main.tex	Sat Dec 20 18:33:21 2008
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 \usepackage{xspace}
 \usepackage{listings}
 \usepackage{fancyvrb}
+\usepackage{multirow}
 \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
 
 %\input{macros}
@@ -31,6 +32,8 @@
         xleftmargin=20pt,xrightmargin=20pt,
         showstringspaces=false}
 
+\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1ex}
+
 
 %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{.98}
 \newboolean{showcomments}



More information about the Pypy-commit mailing list