vs

 1 : Are the Numba programs faster? At a glance.

Each chart bar shows, for one unidentified benchmark, how much the fastest Numba program used compared to the fastest Cython program.

(Memory use is only compared for tasks that require memory to be allocated.)


These are not the only compilers and interpreters. These are not the only programs that could be written. These are not the only tasks that could be solved. These are just 10 tiny examples.

 2 : Are the Numba programs faster? Approximately.

Each table row shows, for one named benchmark, how much the fastest Numba program used compared to the fastest Cython program.

(Memory use is only compared for tasks that require memory to be allocated.)

 Numba used what fraction? used how many times more? 
Benchmark Time Memory Code
 mandelbrot± ±
 templates± ±
 fib50 ±
 fibonacci ±
 binary-trees±±
 n-body ±
 iobench195×?±
 Numba used what fraction? used how many times more? 
Time-used  |-  |---  25% median  75%  ---|  -|
(Elapsed secs)±±±195×

± read the measurements and then read the program source code.

 3 : Are the Numba programs faster? Measurements.

These are not the only tasks that could be solved. These are just 10 tiny examples. These are not the only compilers and interpreters. These are not the only programs that could be written.

For each named benchmark, measurements of the fastest Numba program are shown for comparison against measurements of the fastest Cython program.

Program Source Code CPU secs Elapsed secs Memory KB Code B ≈ CPU Load
 mandelbrot 
Numba80.0320.42100,3243865  99% 98% 97% 98%
Cython72.5718.91191,6523832  99% 99% 96% 99%
 templates 
Numba1.461.4677,320335  1% 0% 0% 99%
Cython1.151.1521,432328  100% 1% 0% 1%
 fib50 
Numba1.341.3473,180152  0% 1% 0% 100%
Cython0.800.819,336156  100% 0% 0% 1%
 fibonacci 
Numba1.201.2074,964160  0% 1% 0% 100%
Cython0.680.689,520184  12% 6% 0% 100%
 binary-trees 
Numba3.991.2364,276702  78% 78% 79% 90%
Cython1.870.5661,260735  82% 82% 95% 82%
 n-body 
Numba58.4358.4497,4921333  0% 100% 0% 0%
Cython12.5812.609,0601392  1% 33% 3% 68%
 iobench 
Numba4.884.8880,276384  0% 0% 100% 0%
Cython0.020.03?366  100% 0% 0% 0%
 fasta 
No program
Cython4.134.149,116945  100% 1% 1% 1%
 richards 
No program
Cython0.760.778,7722467  100% 0% 1% 0%
 jsonbench 
No program
Cython3.663.6712,760323  3% 100% 1% 1%
 regex-dna 
No program
Cython0.050.05?524  0% 17% 100% 0%
 k-nucleotide 
No program
Cython0.090.09?618  0% 0% 0% 100%
 fannkuch-redux 
No program
Cython10.092.6654,4561027  99% 96% 93% 98%
 chameneos-redux 
No program
Cython155.3284.889,0241203  42% 42% 40% 42%
 pystone 
No program
Cython0.090.09?2402  0% 100% 0% 0%
 meteor-contest 
No program
Cython3.543.5511,4201334  1% 100% 2% 1%
 reverse-complement 
No program
Cython0.020.03?449  0% 0% 100% 0%
 fasta-redux 
No program
Cython0.170.17?1169  100% 6% 6% 0%
 spectral-norm 
Numba0.920.9284,664663  0% 3% 49% 48%
No program
 pidigits 
No program
Cython0.030.03?349  0% 100% 0% 0%
 thread-ring 
No program
Cython0.290.291,860419  0% 0% 100% 0%
 binary-trees-redux
   No programs

 4 : Are there other Numba programs for these benchmarks?

Remember - those are just the fastest Numba and Cython programs measured on this OS/machine. Check if there are other implementations of these benchmark programs for Numba.

Maybe one of those other Numba programs is fastest on a different OS/machine.

 5 : Are there other faster programs for these benchmarks?

Remember - those are just the fastest Numba and Cython programs measured on this OS/machine. Check if there are faster implementations of these benchmark programs for other programming languages.

Maybe one of those other programs is fastest on a different OS/machine.

 Numba : Numba JIT compiler 

 

Revised BSD license

  Home   Conclusions   License   Play