Compare the performance of CAL programs against some other language implementation, or check the CAL CPU time and Memory use measurements.
For more information about the CAL implementation we measured see ↓ about CAL.
Are the CAL programs better?
For each of one our benchmarks, a white bar shows which language implementation had the faster program, and a black bar shows which used the least memory.
How many times better?
How many times faster or smaller are the CAL programs than the corresponding Java 6 -server programs?
| CAL x times better ~ Java 6 -server x times better | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program & Logs | Faster | Smaller: Memory Use | Smaller: GZip Bytes | Reduced N |
| binary-trees | ~1.2 | ~1.2 | ~1.2 | |
| chameneos-redux | ||||
| fannkuch | ~1.3 | ~1.5 | ~1.9 | |
| fasta | ~1.4 | ~1.3 | ~1.6 | |
| k-nucleotide | ~1.1 | 1.3 | ~1.6 | |
| mandelbrot | ~1.1 | ~1.1 | ~1.4 | |
| meteor-contest | ~3.5 | ~2.6 | 1.2 | |
| n-body | ~1.4 | ~1.2 | ~1.7 | |
| nsieve | ~1.1 | ~1.2 | ~1.7 | |
| nsieve-bits | ~1.3 | ~1.2 | ~1.9 | |
| partial-sums | ~1.0 | ~1.6 | ~1.5 | |
| pidigits | ~6.3 | ~2.0 | 1.3 | |
| recursive | 1.2 | ~1.3 | ~1.6 | |
| regex-dna | ~1.0 | ~1.3 | ~1.9 | |
| reverse-complement | 1.1 | 1.3 | ~1.9 | |
| spectral-norm | ~1.3 | ~1.2 | ~1.8 | |
| startup | ~1.4 | ~1.5 | ||
| sum-file | ~1.8 | ~1.3 | ~1.4 | |
| thread-ring | ~3.9 | ~1.1 | ~1.8 | |
about CAL
1.7.0
Home Page: The Open Quark Framework for Java and the CAL Language
Download: Download Summary
