/mobile Handheld Friendly website

 binary-trees benchmark N=20

Each chart bar shows how many times more Memory, one ↓ binary-trees program used, compared to the program that used least Memory.

These are not the only programs that could be written. These are not the only compilers and interpreters. These are not the only programming languages.

Column × shows how many times more each program used compared to the benchmark program that used least.

    sortsort sort
  ×   Program Source Code CPU secs Elapsed secs Memory KB Code B ≈ CPU Load
1.0Pascal Free Pascal 33.2533.2765,828769  0% 1% 1% 100%
1.0C gcc 33.4033.4266,104706  0% 0% 0% 100%
1.0C++ g++ #7 10.3610.3867,008919  0% 1% 0% 100%
1.4Rust 15.1315.1590,480779  0% 0% 1% 100%
1.5C++ g++ #2 38.0438.0699,092553  0% 1% 1% 100%
1.5Ada 2005 GNAT 39.9840.0199,444955  1% 1% 0% 100%
1.5Fortran Intel #2 23.7723.7999,6161199  0% 0% 0% 100%
1.5OCaml #2 35.0035.07101,028784  0% 0% 0% 100%
1.6Ada 2005 GNAT #5 11.2211.25105,6962167  0% 1% 1% 100%
1.6Ada 2005 GNAT #4 11.1811.20105,6962167  1% 1% 1% 100%
1.7C gcc #5 75.8275.87109,668963  0% 1% 1% 100%
1.8OCaml #5 35.8935.93115,712496  0% 0% 0% 100%
1.8C# Mono 21.5921.62120,948654  0% 1% 1% 100%
2.3Fortran Intel 173.18173.35153,800826  0% 0% 0% 100%
2.3Dart 35.0135.04154,676503  0% 1% 0% 100%
2.5Haskell GHC 18.9118.94166,212521  0% 0% 0% 100%
2.5F# Mono #3 37.3637.40167,460565  0% 1% 1% 100%
2.6Haskell GHC #4 18.2318.25173,344612  0% 1% 1% 100%
2.7Lisp SBCL 28.5028.54177,784612  0% 0% 1% 100%
2.7Lisp SBCL #2 19.1219.15177,812649  0% 1% 0% 100%
2.9F# Mono 25.8425.88189,180537  0% 0% 1% 100%
3.3Racket #2 27.1427.18218,080640  1% 1% 1% 100%
3.9Go 93.5593.63255,844516  1% 1% 1% 100%
4.1JavaScript V8 39.8639.92267,848467  0% 1% 1% 100%
4.3F# Mono #2 67.1467.22281,144515  0% 1% 1% 100%
4.3Racket 37.3837.43281,180495  0% 1% 1% 100%
4.4Perl 10 min10 min289,324448  0% 0% 0% 100%
4.6Go #2 112.38112.47305,416694  0% 1% 0% 100%
4.6Go #4 110.33110.42305,600688  0% 1% 0% 100%
4.8Go #5 113.29113.39315,4121000  0% 1% 0% 100%
4.8Smalltalk VisualWorks 65.6065.67316,312722  0% 0% 0% 100%
4.9C# Mono #2 42.5542.60319,368650  0% 0% 1% 100%
5.0Ada 2005 GNAT #3 115.88115.94328,9841342  0% 1% 1% 100%
5.1Erlang HiPE #2 47.5747.63338,644499  0% 0% 0% 100%
6.1Ruby 227.06227.16400,436412  0% 0% 1% 100%
6.2Ruby #3 226.44226.55409,360439  0% 1% 1% 100%
6.7Erlang HiPE 50.4950.55443,172441  0% 0% 0% 100%
7.7Scala #4 17.4617.49506,212494  1% 1% 0% 100%
7.7Java  #2 16.5616.59510,068603  1% 1% 1% 100%
7.8Java  #3 16.2816.30511,448584  1% 1% 0% 100%
7.8Clojure #2 22.5822.62511,792750  1% 1% 0% 100%
7.8Clojure 21.7321.76512,756657  0% 1% 1% 100%
8.0Clojure #6 30.8530.90529,700705  1% 1% 1% 100%
8.3PHP 10 min10 min546,248504  0% 0% 0% 100%
8.3PHP #2 9 min9 min546,272472  0% 0% 0% 100%
8.5Ruby #2 222.74222.85557,644413  0% 1% 1% 100%
10Python 3 #6 8 min8 min688,448626  1% 1% 1% 100%
14Ruby JRuby 253.43253.68895,044412  0% 1% 1% 100%
14Ruby JRuby #3 168.68168.87899,264439  1% 1% 1% 100%
16Lua #2 7 min7 min1,033,624446  0% 14% 4% 100%
19PHP #3 15 min15 min1,260,280483  1% 1% 4% 100%
C++ g++ #6 Make Error892
Perl #3 Failed706
Racket #3 Bad Output877
Scala #2 Failed641
"wrong" (different) algorithm / less comparable programs
0.4C gcc #2 2.993.0025,152594
1.3Haskell GHC #5 20.1920.2188,332611
1.5C gcc #7 9.479.4899,412850
1.7C gcc #9 6.236.24114,1281103
3.5Go #6 36.2836.31232,636937
3.6OCaml 12.7412.77235,724563
5.8Scala 16.1416.16379,632549
15PHP #4 541.62542.15957,228945
45Lua #3 477.10477.692,963,916477
missing benchmark programs
C CINT No program

 binary-trees benchmark : Allocate and deallocate many many binary trees

diff program output N = 10 with this 1KB output file to check your program is correct before contributing.

We are trying to show the performance of various programming language implementations - so we ask that contributed programs not only give the correct result, but also use the same algorithm to calculate that result.

Each program should

Note: this is an adaptation of a benchmark for testing GC so we are interested in the whole tree being allocated before any nodes are GC'd - which probably excludes lazy evaluation.

Note: the left subtrees are heads of the right subtrees, keeping a depth counter in the accessors to avoid duplication is cheating!

Note: the tree should have tree-nodes all the way down, replacing the bottom nodes by some other value is not acceptable; and the bottom nodes should be at depth 0.

Note: these programs are being measured with the default initial heap size - the measurements may be very different with a larger initial heap size or GC tuning.

Please don't implement your own custom memory pool or free list.


The binary-trees benchmark is a simplistic adaptation of Hans Boehm's GCBench, which in turn was adapted from a benchmark by John Ellis and Pete Kovac.

Thanks to Christophe Troestler and Einar Karttunen for help with this benchmark.

Revised BSD license

  Home   Conclusions   License   Play