The following benchmark compares juvix 0.6.0 with polysemy and a new
version (implemented in this pr) which replaces polysemy by effectful.
# Typecheck standard library without caching
```
hyperfine --warmup 2 --prepare 'juvix-polysemy clean' 'juvix-polysemy typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix' 'juvix-effectful typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix'
Benchmark 1: juvix-polysemy typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix
Time (mean ± σ): 3.924 s ± 0.143 s [User: 3.787 s, System: 0.084 s]
Range (min … max): 3.649 s … 4.142 s 10 runs
Benchmark 2: juvix-effectful typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix
Time (mean ± σ): 2.558 s ± 0.074 s [User: 2.430 s, System: 0.084 s]
Range (min … max): 2.403 s … 2.646 s 10 runs
Summary
juvix-effectful typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix ran
1.53 ± 0.07 times faster than juvix-polysemy typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix
```
# Typecheck standard library with caching
```
hyperfine --warmup 1 'juvix-effectful typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix' 'juvix-polysemy typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix' --min-runs 20
Benchmark 1: juvix-effectful typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix
Time (mean ± σ): 1.194 s ± 0.068 s [User: 0.979 s, System: 0.211 s]
Range (min … max): 1.113 s … 1.307 s 20 runs
Benchmark 2: juvix-polysemy typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix
Time (mean ± σ): 1.237 s ± 0.083 s [User: 0.997 s, System: 0.231 s]
Range (min … max): 1.061 s … 1.476 s 20 runs
Summary
juvix-effectful typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix ran
1.04 ± 0.09 times faster than juvix-polysemy typecheck Stdlib/Prelude.juvix
```
- ⚠️ Depends on #2644
The `effectful` library does not support the `Embed` effect out of the
box. However, it offers `IOE`, which is equivalent to `Embed IO` from
polysemy. In preparation to a possible migration to `effectful`, this pr
hides the general `Embed` effect from the prelude and it exports a
specialized `EmbedIO` in its place.
This pr implements two additional versions of the Juvix Tree evaluator.
Now we have
1. The raw implementation that does not use effects. It throws Haskell
exceptions for errors. It uses `unsafePerformIO` for traces. It relies
on bang patterns to force strictness and guarantee the expected order of
execution (for traces). Avoiding effects allows for improved execution
efficiency.
2. [`polysemy`](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/polysemy-1.9.1.3)
based implementation.
3.
[`effectful-core`](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/effectful-core)
based implementation.
One can specify which evaluator to use thus:
```
juvix dev tree eval --evaluator XXX test.jvt
```
where XXX is one of `raw`, `polysemy`, `effectful`.
# Preliminary benchmarks
More thorough benchmarks should be run, but here are some preliminary
results:
## Test032 (Fibonacci 20)
I've adapted test032 so that it main is a single call to fibonacci of
20.
Command:
```
hyperfine --warmup 2 --runs 10 'juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator polysemy' 'juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator raw' 'juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator e
ffectful'
```
Output:
```
Benchmark 1: juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator polysemy
Time (mean ± σ): 2.133 s ± 0.040 s [User: 2.113 s, System: 0.016 s]
Range (min … max): 2.088 s … 2.227 s 10 runs
Benchmark 2: juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator raw
Time (mean ± σ): 308.7 ms ± 13.8 ms [User: 293.6 ms, System: 14.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 286.5 ms … 330.1 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 3: juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator effectful
Time (mean ± σ): 366.0 ms ± 2.8 ms [User: 345.4 ms, System: 19.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 362.5 ms … 372.6 ms 10 runs
Summary
juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator raw ran
1.19 ± 0.05 times faster than juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator effectful
6.91 ± 0.34 times faster than juvix dev tree eval test032.jvt --evaluator polysemy
```
## Test034 (Higher-order function composition)
A modified version of test034 where main defined as `call[exp](3, 12)`
Command:
```
hyperfine --warmup 2 --runs 10 'juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator polysemy' 'juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator raw' 'juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator effectful'
```
Output:
```
Benchmark 1: juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator polysemy
Time (mean ± σ): 7.025 s ± 0.184 s [User: 6.518 s, System: 0.469 s]
Range (min … max): 6.866 s … 7.327 s 10 runs
Benchmark 2: juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator raw
Time (mean ± σ): 835.6 ms ± 7.4 ms [User: 757.2 ms, System: 75.9 ms]
Range (min … max): 824.7 ms … 847.4 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 3: juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator effectful
Time (mean ± σ): 1.578 s ± 0.010 s [User: 1.427 s, System: 0.143 s]
Range (min … max): 1.563 s … 1.595 s 10 runs
Summary
juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator raw ran
1.89 ± 0.02 times faster than juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator effectful
8.41 ± 0.23 times faster than juvix dev tree eval test034.jvt --evaluator polysemy
```
## Test036 (Streams without memoization)
A modified version of test036 where main defined as `call[nth](700,
call[primes]())`
Command:
```
hyperfine --warmup 2 --runs 5 'juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator polysemy' 'juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator raw' 'juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator effectful'
```
Output:
```
Benchmark 1: juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator polysemy
Time (mean ± σ): 1.993 s ± 0.026 s [User: 1.946 s, System: 0.043 s]
Range (min … max): 1.969 s … 2.023 s 5 runs
Benchmark 2: juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator raw
Time (mean ± σ): 137.5 ms ± 7.1 ms [User: 127.5 ms, System: 8.9 ms]
Range (min … max): 132.8 ms … 149.8 ms 5 runs
Benchmark 3: juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator effectful
Time (mean ± σ): 329.0 ms ± 7.3 ms [User: 289.3 ms, System: 37.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 319.9 ms … 336.0 ms 5 runs
Summary
juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator raw ran
2.39 ± 0.13 times faster than juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator effectful
14.50 ± 0.77 times faster than juvix dev tree eval test036.jvt --evaluator polysemy
```
