3 ms·
There's got to be some mistake there somewhere - on your part, or on theirs - because there's no way erlag improved from 1.09 seconds to 34 microseconds on pre
by emn13 12y ago
There's got to be some mistake there somewhere - on your part, or on theirs - because there's no way erlag improved from 1.09 seconds to 34 microseconds on pretty much any benchmark between 2010 and 2014. Even the factor 1000 (the message count) isn't enough to account for that difference - something's fishy.
- Dave_Rosenthal 12y ago1M messages passes in 34 microseconds would be ~0.1 CPU clocks per message pass. Maybe an optimizer is stepping in and short-circuiting?
- felixgallo 12y agoheh, not only that, but my fingers accidentally made my test massively concurrent! Such are the perils of erlang. When I defeat the optimizer and also force message passing to be serialized both inside and outside a trial, I get an average of 525000 microseconds, which is more in line with the other results.