binary-trees-redux benchmark N=20
Each chart bar shows how many times slower, one ↓ binary-trees-redux program was, compared to the fastest program.
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.
| sort | sort | sort | ||||
| × | Program Source Code | CPU secs | Elapsed secs | Memory KB | Code B | ≈ CPU Load |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | Lisp SBCL #2 | 30.28 | 30.34 | 402,852 | 649 | 0% 0% 100% 0% |
| 1.1 | Haskell GHC | 34.21 | 34.27 | 259,516 | 521 | 0% 100% 0% 0% |
| 3.2 | Scala #4 | 95.73 | 33.12 | 159,368 | 498 | 73% 64% 64% 88% |
| 3.2 | Java 7 #2 | 96.62 | 32.93 | 154,928 | 607 | 66% 85% 78% 65% |
| 3.4 | Clojure | 104.27 | 38.10 | 240,608 | 661 | 62% 91% 63% 59% |
| 3.9 | Clojure #6 | 119.50 | 43.17 | 229,880 | 709 | 61% 73% 84% 60% |
| 20 | Ruby JRuby | 10 min | 228.56 | 1,167,472 | 412 | 75% 72% 61% 60% |
| missing benchmark programs | ||||||
| Ada 2005 GNAT | No program | |||||
| ATS | No program | |||||
| C gcc | No program | |||||
| C# Mono | No program | |||||
| C++ g++ | No program | |||||
| Dart | No program | |||||
| Erlang | No program | |||||
| Erlang HiPE | No program | |||||
| F# Mono | No program | |||||
| Fortran Intel | No program | |||||
| Go | No program | |||||
| OCaml | No program | |||||
| Pascal Free Pascal | No program | |||||
| Perl | No program | |||||
| PHP | No program | |||||
| Python 3 | No program | |||||
| Racket | No program | |||||
| Ruby 2.0 | No program | |||||
binary-trees-redux benchmark : Allocate and deallocate many many binary trees
The binary-trees-redux benchmark is another simplistic adaptation of Hans Boehm's GCBench, which in turn was adapted from a benchmark by John Ellis and Pete Kovac.
Heap size has been limited for each program, to 8KB more than that program needs to complete the task.