Redcloth upwards - Apr 2009 - looking for textile reference in textile source for benchmarking

Jason,

Do you have any of the longer textile reference documents online in 
textile source format.

I wanted to try benchmarking redcloth on them and comparing it to 
what Maurico found benchmarking bluecloth.

see: 
http://eigenclass.org/R2/writings/fast-extensible-simplified-markdown-in-ocaml

The markdown syntax document he is benchmarking is about 11k.

You can see my results duplicating the bluecloth results here:

   http://gist.github.com/gists/91477

and in a graph:

   http://img.skitch.com/20090408-fp1sxu3fu7dm4296kqrmskgaqt.png

I was curious how fast redcloth would be at a comparable task and 
whether redcloth would also show non-linear processing times as the 
input document got larger.

At 1:15 PM -0400 4/8/09, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>You can see my results duplicating the bluecloth results here:
>
>   http://gist.github.com/gists/91477
correct gist url: http://gist.github.com/91477

No, they''re all in individual entries in the CMS, but it
shouldn''t
take me long to have it loop over them and dump as plain text...

<r:find url="/textile/">
<r:children:each><r:children:each>
<r:content part="input" />

<r:children:each>
<r:content part="input" />

</r:children:each></r:children:each>
</r:children:each>
</r:find>

Easy enough!  The result is attached.

On Apr 8, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Do you have any of the longer textile reference documents online in  
> textile source format.
>
> I wanted to try benchmarking redcloth on them and comparing it to  
> what Maurico found benchmarking bluecloth.
>
> see:
http://eigenclass.org/R2/writings/fast-extensible-simplified-markdown-in-ocaml
>
> The markdown syntax document he is benchmarking is about 11k.
>
> You can see my results duplicating the bluecloth results here:
>
>  http://gist.github.com/gists/91477
>
> and in a graph:
>
>  http://img.skitch.com/20090408-fp1sxu3fu7dm4296kqrmskgaqt.png
>
> I was curious how fast redcloth would be at a comparable task and  
> whether redcloth would also show non-linear processing times as the  
> input document got larger.
> _______________________________________________
> Redcloth-upwards mailing list
> Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: textile-dump-of-manual.textile
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/redcloth-upwards/attachments/20090408/b87000a8/attachment-0001.obj>

Thanks Jason,

Here are some interesting results testing in MRI 1.8.6 and JRuby.

Testing BlueCloth:

http://img.skitch.com/20090411-fp1sxu3fu7dm4296kqrmskgaqt.png

Testing RedCloth:

http://img.skitch.com/20090411-5is73f52ftck2h3pyiiyjiu2m.png

Interesting.  Care to offer any interpretation?

On Apr 11, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
> Thanks Jason,
>
> Here are some interesting results testing in MRI 1.8.6 and JRuby.
>
> Testing BlueCloth:
>
> http://img.skitch.com/20090411-fp1sxu3fu7dm4296kqrmskgaqt.png
>
> Testing RedCloth:
>
> http://img.skitch.com/20090411-5is73f52ftck2h3pyiiyjiu2m.png
> _______________________________________________
> Redcloth-upwards mailing list
> Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards

At 9:41 PM -0400 4/13/09, Jason Garber wrote:
>Interesting.  Care to offer any interpretation?
BlueCloth is much slower and the time for processing increases 
quadratically as the input document get''s larger. I haven''t
looked at
why.

RedCloth is about 15x faster and scales linearly -- again I''m not 
sure why but I like that behavior ;-)

When most of the processing time is spent in Ruby regex''s (bluecloth) 
JRuby is about twice as fast.

Running RedCloth in JRuby however is only about 10% faster. From 
previous benchmarking of Hpricot I suspect that the ragel code in 
Java is just a bit slower than the C and the speedup is due to other 
areas where JRuby is faster.

The context for the benchmarking is a blog post here:

 
http://eigenclass.org/R2/writings/fast-extensible-simplified-markdown-in-ocaml

Mauricio''s implementation of a simple markdown processor in OCaml 
appears to be about 20x faster than RedCloth.

I''d like to know a good way of measuring "real" memory use
when
running a benchmark like this in Ruby especially one that involves a 
native library. Mauricio''s reports very low memory usage from his 
OCaml implementation.
>On Apr 11, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>
>>Thanks Jason,
>>
>>Here are some interesting results testing in MRI 1.8.6 and JRuby.
>>
>>Testing BlueCloth:
>>
>>http://img.skitch.com/20090411-fp1sxu3fu7dm4296kqrmskgaqt.png
>>
>>Testing RedCloth:
>>
>>http://img.skitch.com/20090411-5is73f52ftck2h3pyiiyjiu2m.png
>>_______________________________________________
>>Redcloth-upwards mailing list
>>Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
>>http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards
>
>_______________________________________________
>Redcloth-upwards mailing list
>Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
>http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards

Awesome.  Thanks, Stephen!

On Apr 13, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
> At 9:41 PM -0400 4/13/09, Jason Garber wrote:
>> Interesting.  Care to offer any interpretation?
>
> BlueCloth is much slower and the time for processing increases  
> quadratically as the input document get''s larger. I
haven''t looked
> at why.
>
> RedCloth is about 15x faster and scales linearly -- again I''m not
> sure why but I like that behavior ;-)
>
> When most of the processing time is spent in Ruby regex''s  
> (bluecloth) JRuby is about twice as fast.
>
> Running RedCloth in JRuby however is only about 10% faster. From  
> previous benchmarking of Hpricot I suspect that the ragel code in  
> Java is just a bit slower than the C and the speedup is due to other  
> areas where JRuby is faster.
>
> The context for the benchmarking is a blog post here:
>
>
http://eigenclass.org/R2/writings/fast-extensible-simplified-markdown-in-ocaml
>
> Mauricio''s implementation of a simple markdown processor in OCaml
> appears to be about 20x faster than RedCloth.
>
> I''d like to know a good way of measuring "real" memory
use when
> running a benchmark like this in Ruby especially one that involves a  
> native library. Mauricio''s reports very low memory usage from his
> OCaml implementation.
>
>> On Apr 11, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jason,
>>>
>>> Here are some interesting results testing in MRI 1.8.6 and JRuby.
>>>
>>> Testing BlueCloth:
>>>
>>> http://img.skitch.com/20090411-fp1sxu3fu7dm4296kqrmskgaqt.png
>>>
>>> Testing RedCloth:
>>>
>>> http://img.skitch.com/20090411-5is73f52ftck2h3pyiiyjiu2m.png
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Redcloth-upwards mailing list
>>> Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Redcloth-upwards mailing list
>> Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redcloth-upwards mailing list
> Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards