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 33.1933.2165,836769  1% 1% 1% 100%
1.0C gcc 34.1434.1666,096706  0% 1% 1% 100%
1.5C++ g++ #2 38.5238.5599,080553  0% 100% 1% 2%
1.5Ada 2005 GNAT 41.2041.2299,420955  1% 0% 0% 100%
1.5OCaml #2 40.1416.27101,028784  36% 95% 49% 69%
1.6C gcc #3 9.742.85103,700906  76% 76% 100% 93%
1.6Ada 2005 GNAT #4 15.285.06105,6162167  71% 96% 65% 74%
1.7Ada 2005 GNAT #5 15.235.00109,8442167  71% 75% 70% 94%
1.7C gcc #5 114.1032.04112,636963  93% 88% 92% 85%
1.8OCaml #5 35.6835.73115,716496  0% 0% 0% 100%
1.8Fortran Intel #2 23.997.93116,9801199  68% 68% 98% 69%
2.0Rust 14.963.92129,680788  95% 98% 95% 95%
2.0Ruby #5 221.0176.21130,9361123  66% 97% 63% 65%
2.1Ruby #4 218.16218.24135,080402  0% 1% 1% 100%
2.1C# Mono 20.2420.24137,756654  98% 1% 2% 1%
2.1Go #8 57.8716.93139,136814  86% 85% 86% 86%
2.3Go #7 85.4885.44149,256567  9% 25% 1% 67%
2.3Go #9 85.0484.98150,388548  37% 1% 63% 0%
2.3Go 85.1085.04150,552516  1% 0% 100% 1%
2.3Fortran Intel 177.99178.17153,820826  0% 0% 0% 100%
2.5Lisp SBCL #2 17.5217.54164,952649  1% 0% 100% 1%
2.6Haskell GHC 40.0320.51169,524521  32% 100% 33% 32%
2.6F# Mono #3 36.8036.81170,588565  26% 54% 1% 21%
2.6Lisp SBCL 26.0526.08171,136612  0% 1% 1% 100%
2.7Go #5 96.7024.76175,2401000  98% 98% 98% 98%
2.7Go #4 90.6724.20175,552688  93% 93% 96% 93%
2.7Go #2 90.9024.16176,316694  93% 94% 94% 96%
2.7C++ g++ #6 15.895.05179,668892  73% 70% 97% 77%
2.8Ruby #3 273.95274.06182,004439  1% 0% 100% 1%
2.8F# Mono 23.7223.72182,732537  100% 0% 1% 1%
3.0Dart 25.6024.76195,636503  3% 3% 24% 76%
3.2Ruby 265.14265.23210,228412  0% 1% 1% 100%
3.6Ruby #2 258.68258.78239,840413  23% 1% 39% 39%
3.7Racket #2 27.2327.26246,356640  1% 0% 0% 100%
3.8F# Mono #2 61.6061.59252,036515  99% 1% 1% 1%
4.3Racket 37.3637.41280,268495  0% 1% 100% 0%
4.4Perl 11 min11 min289,788448  89% 10% 3% 7%
4.9C# Mono #2 42.9842.99320,644650  1% 99% 0% 1%
5.0Ada 2005 GNAT #3 115.7031.83331,2641342  90% 91% 91% 93%
6.0Haskell GHC #4 40.3313.56398,172612  66% 67% 100% 66%
7.2Java  #2 18.8013.38475,860603  17% 22% 21% 83%
7.2Java  #3 18.8013.20476,640584  38% 37% 32% 37%
7.4Scala #4 20.8314.40485,116494  46% 16% 39% 46%
8.1Clojure #2 32.8810.16531,228750  76% 90% 84% 76%
8.1Clojure 24.1316.72533,772657  30% 31% 51% 34%
8.1Erlang HiPE 33.0433.07534,884441  1% 1% 96% 4%
8.2Clojure #6 34.6926.42540,464705  48% 23% 15% 47%
8.3PHP #2 9 min9 min546,272472  72% 24% 5% 4%
8.3PHP 10 min10 min547,708504  0% 97% 3% 0%
9.4Erlang HiPE #2 46.2612.88617,852499  99% 88% 88% 86%
10Python 3 #6 8 min139.26688,512626  93% 96% 96% 94%
13Ruby JRuby #5 13 min210.37848,0241123  95% 95% 95% 94%
13Ruby JRuby #4 183.26110.20885,848402  67% 31% 27% 43%
14Ruby JRuby #3 185.50112.09899,400439  45% 40% 56% 27%
14Ruby JRuby 254.58127.72901,460412  36% 48% 82% 36%
14Perl #3 14 min258.43912,720706  94% 69% 100% 72%
19PHP #3 15 min15 min1,256,324483  0% 0% 0% 100%
Racket #3 Bad Output877
Scala #2 Failed641
"wrong" (different) algorithm / less comparable programs
0.4C gcc #2 2.962.9725,064594
1.3C++ g++ #7 13.234.2088,348919
1.6C gcc #7 11.263.25103,644850
1.6Haskell GHC #5 29.1411.85106,400611
1.7C gcc #9 6.391.73114,3321103
3.6OCaml 12.6312.65235,720563
3.8Go #6 40.3017.47253,160937
5.2Go #3 37.7010.36342,724836
5.9Scala 17.4511.56389,904549
15PHP #4 673.93344.32957,240945

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

You can write your own program for this task and contribute to the benchmarks game by following these general instructions.

More specifically:

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