Browse thread
Burrows Wheeler Transform
- Jon Harrop
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Burrows Wheeler Transform |
I recently wrote an interesting blog post comparing the Burrows-Wheeler Transform written in OCaml and F#: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ocaml-vs-f-burrows-wheeler.html F# has a really handy "inline" feature that allows the programmer to have higher-order functions and their function arguments inlined and specialized to completely remove the performance overheads (i.e. polymorphism and closure invocation). Would be really nice if this were possible in OCaml too. Perhaps a batteries included macro is in order? :-) Mauricio Fernandez was kind enough to optimize my simple fork-based parallelism into genuine shared memory parallelism, turning it into a real quicksort and producing much better performance (only 75% slower than F#): http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/920y4/ocaml_vs_f_burrows_wheeler_transform/c0b5u80 Matias Giovannini's minimal sorting networks can probably make it substantially faster still: http://alaska-kamtchatka.blogspot.com/2008/08/family-portrait.html I also wrote an article about QR decomposition that uses the same technique but the performance difference is much bigger because the functions being inlined are basic arithmetic ops: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ocaml-vs-f-qr-decomposition.html -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e