| From honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!brahme Wed Sep 15 17:25:28 EDT 1993 |
| Article: 8544 of comp.lang.prolog |
| Xref: honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.prolog:8544 |
| Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog |
| Path: honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!brahme |
| From: brahme@netcom.com (brahme) |
| Subject: benchmarking prolog systems: Here is one small program |
| Message-ID: <brahmeCDD9I4.645@netcom.com> |
| Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) |
| Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 23:06:03 GMT |
| Lines: 31 |
| |
| %% Here are a few predicates which can be used to benchmark |
| %% various prolog systems. This would test the prolog systems management of |
| %% program space. This is the space typically used by asserts and retracts |
| %% as well as built_ins like findall. Also comparing the times with g1 would |
| %% indicate the overhead of findall and assert/retracts |
| |
| %% It would nice if people could develop such small benchmarks which |
| %% test parts of various prolog systems that are not covered by the |
| %% existing benchmarks. |
| |
| |
| g1(N, L) :- length(L, N), same_value(L, e). |
| |
| g2(0) :- !. |
| g2(N, A) :- N > 0, A = e. |
| g2(N, A) :- N > 0, N1 is N - 1, g2(N1, A). |
| |
| g1f(N, Es) :- |
| g1(N, L), |
| findall(E, member(E, L), Es). |
| |
| g2f(N, Es) :- |
| g2(N, A), findall(A, g2(N, A), Es). |
| |
| g2a(N) :- |
| asserta(g2_ans([])), |
| g2(N, A), retract(g2_ans(List)), asserta(g2_ans([A|List])), fail. |
| g2a(N) :- retract(g2_ans(List)). |
| |
| same_value([], _E). |
| same_value([E|R], E) :- same_value(R, E). |
| |
| |
| |
