here - Stefan-Marr.de

8.4. Ad hoc vs. OMOP Performance
100.00
31.62
10.00
3.16
1.00
0.32
Array Access
Class Var Binding
FloatLoop
Instance Var.
Int Loop
Sends
Local Sends
with 10 arguments
Local Sends
Remote Sends
Remote Sends
with 10 arguments
Runtime, normalized to corresponding Ad Hoc
implementation, lower is better
AmbientTalkST
100.00
31.62
10.00
3.16
1.00
0.32
LRSTM
Array Access
Class Var Binding
FloatLoop
Instance Var.
Int Loop
Sends
Sends
with 10 arguments
AST-OMOP on CogVM
RoarVM+OMOP (opt)
AST-OMOP on CogVM
RoarVM+OMOP (opt)
Figure 8.4.: Ad hoc vs. OMOP Microbenchmarks: Runtime normalized to Ad hoc
implementations, logarithmic scale. The AST-OMOP implementation on top of
the CogVM shows significant slowdowns especially for the AmbientTalkST microbenchmarks
because more operations are reified. However, some benchmarks
show speedups. The overhead for the VM-based implementation is generally
lower and outperforms the ad hoc implementation of the STM on a number of
benchmarks.
217