3 ms·
I fully agree with your post. I am just not sure if you are trying to make a point for larger datasets in benchmark (like I did) or you are trying to imply that
by andi999 6y ago
I fully agree with your post. I am just not sure if you are trying to make a point for larger datasets in benchmark (like I did) or you are trying to imply that this is not necessary?
- titzer 6y agoI generally agree the benchmark is too small, but I have serious issues with Lemire's approach to benchmarking in general. Things get pretty nuts at that small of a timescale and things like frequency scaling can make a huge difference. I would draw absolutely zero conclusions on these reported results.
- ggrrhh_ta 6y agoI had that sort of impression as well, but after playing with the benchmark and seeing the assembly code, and checking the actual theoretical throughputs for my microprocessor, I realized that in this case, and previous ones, there was nothing relevant to the results that had to do with the way benchmarking was implemented. These pieces of code would be thought to be in the innermost loop, and practically they might not actually process a very large part of the array. There are solutions, and better approaches, sure, but they pinpoint real issues that cause spread in your performance across microprocessors & compilers that are worth having in mind.