Compare the performance of Erlang HiPE programs against some other language implementation, or check the Erlang CPU time and Memory use measurements.
For more information about the Erlang implementation we measured see ↓ about Erlang HiPE.
Are the Erlang HiPE 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 Erlang HiPE programs than the corresponding Java 6 -server programs?
| Erlang HiPE x times better ~ Java 6 -server x times better | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program & Logs | Faster | Smaller: Memory Use | Smaller: GZip Bytes | Reduced N |
| binary-trees | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.4 | |
| chameneos-redux | ~1.2 | 2.4 | 2.0 | |
| fannkuch | ~5.9 | 1.9 | ~1.2 | |
| fasta | ~7.4 | 2.2 | 1.2 | |
| k-nucleotide | ~2.6 | ~1.3 | 1.2 | |
| mandelbrot | ~14.8 | 2.3 | 1.2 | |
| meteor-contest | ||||
| n-body | ~10.0 | 2.4 | 1.0 | |
| nsieve | ~1.5 | 1.1 | 1.3 | |
| nsieve-bits | ~2.3 | 1.5 | 1.3 | |
| partial-sums | 1.1 | 1.8 | ~1.0 | |
| pidigits | ~1.6 | 1.5 | 1.7 | |
| recursive | ~3.8 | 2.3 | 1.1 | |
| regex-dna | ~6.5 | ~1.6 | 1.1 | |
| reverse-complement | ~13.1 | ~6.6 | 1.9 | |
| spectral-norm | ~7.3 | 1.5 | ~1.1 | |
| startup | 1.1 | 1.1 | ||
| sum-file | ~108 | ~9.3 | 1.3 | |
| thread-ring | 18 | 4.5 | 2.0 | |
about Erlang HiPE
All you wanted to know about the HiPE compile (but might have been afraid to ask)
The development of the HiPE system: design and experience report
Erlang (ASYNC_THREADS,HIPE) (BEAM) emulator version 5.6.1
R12B-1
Home Page: http://www.erlang.org/
Download: http://www.erlang.org/download.html
