Compare the performance of Haskell GHC programs against some other language implementation, or check the Haskell CPU time and Memory use measurements.
For more information about the Haskell implementation we measured see ↓ about Haskell GHC.
Are the Haskell GHC 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 Haskell GHC programs than the corresponding Java 6 -server programs?
| Haskell GHC x times better ~ Java 6 -server x times better | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program & Logs | Faster | Smaller: Memory Use | Smaller: GZip Bytes | Reduced N |
| binary-trees | 1.9 | 2.6 | 1.2 | |
| chameneos-redux | 1.4 | 7.4 | 1.8 | |
| fannkuch | ~1.5 | 9.0 | ~1.9 | |
| fasta | ~2.9 | 6.1 | 1.1 | |
| k-nucleotide | ~1.8 | ~2.5 | ~1.7 | |
| mandelbrot | ~1.7 | 8.3 | 1.1 | |
| meteor-contest | ~1.1 | 5.6 | 1.5 | |
| n-body | ~3.3 | 7.0 | ~1.2 | |
| nsieve | 1.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | |
| nsieve-bits | 1.2 | 3.3 | 1.4 | |
| partial-sums | 2.1 | 9.8 | ~1.0 | |
| pidigits | ~1.4 | 4.0 | 2.6 | |
| recursive | ~1.2 | 7.5 | ~1.0 | |
| regex-dna | ||||
| reverse-complement | 2.1 | ~1.2 | ~1.1 | |
| spectral-norm | 11.6 | ~1.4 | ||
| startup | 50 | 2.5 | ||
| sum-file | ~1.1 | 3.8 | 1.4 | |
| thread-ring | 20 | 9.0 | 2.1 | |
about Haskell GHC
Glasgow Haskell Compiler, Version 6.8.2, for Haskell 98, stage 2 booted by GHC version 6.8.2
Home Page: http://www.haskell.org/
Download: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/
