[Ur] TechEmpower benchmarks Round 9

[Sergey Mironov]

Congratulations!


2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+04:00 Adam Chlipala <adamc at csail.mit.edu>:

>  They're out, and they include a serious Ur/Web configuration error for
> one of the platforms (and I hope this error is fixed in amended results),
> but there is already some good info here to support claims of high
> performance for Ur/Web.  Here's the text I added to the FAQ:
>
>  Can you be more specific about run-time performance?
>
> The TechEmpower Web Framework Benchmarks<http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/>provide a performance comparison managed by a third party. Ur/Web does
> pretty well, and you can check that site for details, but a few caveats are
> important. First, the Ur/Web programming model is unusually oriented toward
> security and concurrency simplicity. For instance, Ur/Web's standard random
> number generation function generates cryptographically secure numbers,
> which imposes an extra run-time cost in the several benchmarks based on
> random numbers; and Ur/Web's concurrency model allows the programmer to
> think of every piece of code as running inside a transaction, which imposes
> extra run-time cost in the several benchmarks that use databases,
> necessarily within a transaction per request, unlike in almost all other
> frameworks' entries in the benchmarks. Also, by the way, the current i7
> numbers were captured under a serious configuration error and should be
> ignored.
>
> OK, having said all that, Ur/Web is still doing pretty darn well! Consider
> the results for the highest-capacity machine in the benchmarks, which
> provides 48 hardware threads. In rough numbers, here's how Ur/Web is doing.
>   Test Requests/sec. Latency  Hello world in JSON 400k 0.6 ms  1 SQL query
> 100k 2 ms  20 SQL queries 10k 24 ms  20 SQL query/update pairs 500 2 s
>
> Yeah, Ur/Web is really falling over in the many-updates test, with
> optimistic SQL concurrency thrashing to provide the transactional semantics
> that most benchmark entrants don't bother to shoot for. Still, very few web
> sites process as much as hundreds of requests per second!
>
> Despite Ur/Web's performance handicaps in service of a pleasant
> programming model, on the Fortunes test, which is closest to the scenario
> Ur/Web was designed for, Ur/Web has the best latency and 4th-best
> throughput, out of about 50 frameworks passing that test's basic sanity
> check. In the spirit of sibling rivalry, I'll also point out that the
> Haskell frameworks consistently achieve less than half the throughput of
> Ur/Web.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ur mailing list
> Ur at impredicative.com
> http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.impredicative.com/pipermail/ur/attachments/20140507/03e9f175/attachment.html>