[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Dec 18 16:11:50 2003 
Subject:Re: Comparing Garbage Collectors 
From:Jonathan L Cunningham 
Volume-ID:1031218.03 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:07:46 GMT, spam@softluck.plus.com (Jonathan L
Cunningham) wrote:

>>> >[AS]
>>> >You can check this by looking at the output of dic_distrib(); which
>>> >prints out bucket sizes.
 
>>>[JLC]
>>> Groan! Why oh why doesn't it leave them on the stack, so that
>>>  [% dic_distrib() %]
>>> would give a list that could be analysed?
 
>>This will do it:
>
>Thanks ... saves me doing it. I may have a quick play with the
>numbers now ...

Which I've just done. This is in Windows Poplog with a relatively
empty dictionary (about 2130 entries -- which still suggests
the dictionary ought to be bigger).

I got these figures (slightly reformatted by hand):

   size   actual  predicted
** [ 0   0.149414 0.12492]
** [ 1   0.257813 0.259844]
** [ 2   0.260742 0.270248]
** [ 3   0.162109 0.187379]
** [ 4   0.086914 0.097441]
** [ 5   0.047852 0.040537]
** [ 6   0.021484 0.014053]
** [ 7   0.011719 0.004176]
** [ 8   0.000977 0.001086]
** [ 9   0.0      0.000251]
** [10   0.0      0.000052]
** [11   0.000977 0.00001]

Where size is the size of bucket, and the other columns give the
fraction of buckets which should be of that size (assuming a
Poisson distribution, which I think is what it should be).

It actually looks quite good: the main problem simply being that
the total number of buckets is too few (i.e. there are more than
twice as many words as buckets). There are *slightly* more big
buckets than we'd expect, as well as slightly more empty
buckets (predicted 128, actual 153 -- multiply by 1024 the total
number of buckets).

Jonathan

-- 
    Use jlc at address, not spam.