Michael Kifer writes:
> > > > > The overhead for HiLog in the loss of some indexing.
> >
> > To quote, "In XSB, HiLog using specialisation clearly outperforms the set
> > of
> > generic predicates; HiLog programs run between 7 and 8 times than generic
> > Prolog
> > programs. Furthermore, compared to the specialised generic HiLog
> > predicates, the
> > non-generic Prolog predicates execute only 10-13% faster."
> >
> > This 10-13% is more than compensated for with efforts from AMD and Intel
> > ;-)
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion from the authors of that paper:
> >
> > "... HiLog, Prolog programmers would rightfully demand future logic
> > programming
> > systems extended to support HiLog functionality."
>
>
> We did not find that specialization works for us. Perhaps for some
> programs, but not for our benchmarks.
> In fact, for the combination of F-logic and HiLog the gain should be
> minimal. So, Flora, in fact, disables specialization due to some other
> negative considerations.
The assumption made in the paper, which resulted in the 10%-13%
number, was that they were essentially Prolog programs, except using
variable or structured predicate names. Flora has MUCH more going on,
being a compiler that generates XSB code. The Prolog programs
generated by Flora are programs no user would ever write by hand
(which is one of the strengths of Flora, but also one of the
difficulties in getting an efficient implementation by translating to
Prolog.)
-David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
|
