ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)

[Mostowski Collapse]

I am testing a Prolog interpreter written
in Python. So fibonacci number routine is
written in Prolog and I am running the

fibonnaci number routine inside the
Prolog interpreter that is written in
Python. The factor 6x times faster of

GraalVM can be reproduced also for other
Prolog programs running inside the Prolog
interpreter that is written in Python.

I have a benchmark suite, where I get,
the figures are milliseconds:

Test	Standard	GraalVM
Total	 170'996 	 28'523

This means the factor is:

170'996 / 28'523 = 5.9950

The test harness, test cases and individual
results for all test cases are found here:

And we could test GraalVM Python, results are from 14.09.2021,
tested with Dogelog Runtime 0.9.5, Python Version:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/f4e774ebb15cac722238b26b1a620f84#gistcomment-3892587

Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 8:46 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>> The Standard Python version of Dogelog runtime
>> is annoyingly slow. So we gave it a try with
>> andother Python, and it was 6x times faster.
>>
>> We could test GraalVM. We worked around the missing
>> match in Python 3.8 by replacing it with if-then-else.
>> Performance is a little better, we find:
>>
>> /* Standard Python Version, Warm Run */
>> ?- time(fibo(23,X)).
>> % Wall 3865 ms, gc 94 ms, 71991 lips
>> X = 46368.
>>
>> /* GraalVM Python Version, Warm Warm Run */
>> ?- time(fibo(23,X)).
>> % Wall 695 ms, gc 14 ms, 400356 lips
>> X = 46368.
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python
>> https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1437395917167112193
>>
>> JDK 1.8 GraalVM Python is 6x faster than Standard Python
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog
> 
> You need to test more than fibonacci to make that claim.  There is a 
> benchmark test that times around 40 different similarly small benchmarks.
> 
>