Hi,
The sharing example was painful for my GC.
I got a long GC pause:
/* Dogelog Player 1.3.5 for JavaScript */
?- time((share(X), acyclic3(X), fail; true)).
% Zeit 122 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 4906262, Uhr 30.07.2025 04:54
true.
?- time((share(X), acyclic3(X), fail; true)).
% Zeit 445 ms, GC 313 ms, Lips 1345087, Uhr 30.07.2025 04:54
true.
But fixed now:
/* Dogelog Player 1.3.5 for JavaScript */
?- time((share(X), acyclic3(X), fail; true)).
% Zeit 125 ms, GC 7 ms, Lips 4788512, Uhr 30.07.2025 09:11
true.
Here is share/1, the idea is to have some
deep term, and share it widely:
share(L) :-
fac(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(n))))))), X),
length(L, 5000),
maplist(=(X), L).
With usual peano arithmetic. n/0 stands for
null, and s/1 for successor:
add(n, X, X).
add(s(X), Y, Z) :- add(X, s(Y), Z).
mul(n, _, n).
mul(s(X), Y, Z) :- mul(X, Y, H), add(Y, H, Z).
fac(n, s(n)).
fac(s(X), Y) :- fac(X, H), mul(s(X), H, Y).
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Looks like the pairs are really nasty.
I have them on the Novacore GIT.
This one is no problem for Scryer-Prolog:
test :-
share(X), share(Y), X == Y.
/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.26 */
?- time(test).
% 32,140 inferences, 0.000 CPU in 0.002 seconds (0% CPU, Infinite Lips)
true.
/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-417 */
?- time(test).
% CPU time: 0.006s, 32_042 inferences
true.
/* Trealla Prolog 2.79.6 */
?- time(test).
% Time elapsed 0.016s, 42012 Inferences, 2.582 MLips
true.
/* Dogelog Player 1.3.5 */
?- time(test2).
% % Zeit 83 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 12117469, Uhr 30.07.2025 05:47
% true.
The Dogelog Player solutions uses a variant
of library(hash), called library(maps).
Both hash tables are itself 100% Prolog.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Having fun with Bisimulation, and a new test
suite of nasty circular pairs. But how store
circular pairs, if clauses do not support
circular terms. Well chop it up into equations,
I create 1000 such equation pairs:
test([A = c(A, B), C = c(A, D), E = n, _ = c(F, B),
F = c(C, C), G = c(G, D), D = c(E, C), B = n],
[H = c(H, I), J = c(K, I), L = c(L, I), I = c(M, N),
O = c(K, J), N = n, K = c(K, J), M = c(K, O)]).
Etc..
The pairs are nasty because the usual compare_with_stack/2
chokes on them. Here some results:
/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.26 */
?- time((between(1,30,_), part, fail; true)).
% 540,118 inferences, 0.047 CPU in 0.041 seconds (115% CPU, 11522517
Lips)
true.
/* Trealla Prolog 2.78.40 */
?- time((between(1,30,_), part, fail; true)).
% Time elapsed 0.113s, 1143903 Inferences, 10.157 MLips
true.
/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-417 */
?- time((between(1,30,_), part, fail; true)).
% CPU time: 0.226s, 1_117_809 inferences
true.
/* Dogelog Player 1.3.5 */
?- time((between(1,30,_), part2, fail; true)).
% Zeit 309 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 8693718, Uhr 25.07.2025 13:47
true.
The amazing thing is, I compared a 100% Prolog
implementation, so there is a lot of head room
for improvement:
part2 :-
bitest(X,Y), X ~~ Y, fail; true.
The operator (~~)/2 is part of library(math),
and has been implemented with same_term/2 so far.
Bye
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)