Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!calgary!cpsc!phant
From: phant@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Thong Phan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Speed comparison between Quintus and BIMProlog
Message-ID: <1932@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 89 19:30:49 GMT
Sender: news@calgary.UUCP
Lines: 27

We have Quintus Prolog version 2.4.2, and using Naive Reverse, 
its peak performance is about 288 KLIPS (for Sun-4 computers).
Recently, we heard claims that BIMProlog (sp?) have ~400 KLIPS
when running under SparcStations (no mention of CPU speed).
Which leads to the following questions about the performance of 
Quintus Prolog and BIMProlog (newest version)

1) Are there significant differences between Quintus and BIMProlog?

2) What are their peak performances in KLIPS (for SparcStations)?
   Using Naive Reverse? Using Concat/Append? 
   (Is there any reference to the exact/accepted definition of LIPS?)

3) How about their memory requirements?

4) Generally, which one is faster for large program with lots of
   asserts and unifications (runtime approx. 2-3 days)?

I'm greatly appreciate answers from people with experience with
either one, especially with BIMProlog, running under SparcStations
and/or Sun-4.

Thong.

--
 Thong H. Phan 				Dept of Cpsc, Univ of Calgary
 phant@cpsc.UCalgary.CA			Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4