"Hello World" performance comparison between GraalVM and Go

Go is an established language with a lots of production exposure. Go is infamous for creating small application footprint and fast performance.

As for GraalVM, taken from their Website:

GraalVM is a universal virtual machine for running applications written in JavaScript, Python, Ruby, R, JVM-based languages like Java, Scala, Groovy, Kotlin, Clojure, and LLVM-based languages such as C and C++.

Which means that it combines the JVM ecosystem with the small footprint and performance of native apps. It looks very promising so far.

In this tutorial I wanted to check really quick what is their "Hello World" performance characteristics just to see how the compare. I may be doing more experiments with different apps to explore more about it.

The Program

I've used standard hello world programs for both Kotlin and Go:

package main

import "fmt"

func main() {
    fmt.Println("hello world")
}

package hello

fun main(args: Array<String>) : Unit {
    println("Hello world")
}

I've used the following versions for Go and GraalVM native-image utility:

$ go version      
go version go1.12.9 darwin/amd64

➜ $GRAALVM_HOME/bin/native-image --version 
GraalVM Version 19.3.0 CE

I run the examples in this following system:

  Model Name:   MacBook Pro
  Model Identifier: MacBookPro12,1
  Processor Name:   Intel Core i5
  Processor Speed:  2.9 GHz
  Number of Processors: 1
  Total Number of Cores:    2
  L2 Cache (per Core):  256 KB
  L3 Cache: 3 MB
  Hyper-Threading Technology:   Enabled
  Memory:   16 GB

The Results

First I compiled the Go executable:

$ go build main.go

Disk usage reports only 2mb! Thats great:

$ du -h  main                    
2.0M    main

Time usage via both time and gnu-time commands:

$ gtime -v ./main
hello world
        Command being timed: "./main"
        User time (seconds): 0.00
        System time (seconds): 0.00
        Percent of CPU this job got: 66%
        Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:00.00
        Average shared text size (kbytes): 0
        Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0
        Average stack size (kbytes): 0
        Average total size (kbytes): 0
        Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 1960
        Average resident set size (kbytes): 0
        Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 0
        Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 615
        Voluntary context switches: 1
        Involuntary context switches: 75
        Swaps: 0
        File system inputs: 0
        File system outputs: 0
        Socket messages sent: 0
        Socket messages received: 0
        Signals delivered: 0
        Page size (bytes): 4096
        Exit status: 0


$ time ./main          
hello world
./main  0.00s user 0.00s system 60% cpu 0.010 total

Next I compiled the Kotlin example:

I run maven install typically and then the native-image tool:

mvn clean install

$GRAALVM_HOME/bin/native-image -cp ./target/mixed-code-hello-world-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar -H:Name=helloworld -H:Class=hello.JavaHello -H:+ReportUnsupportedElementsAtRuntime --allow-incomplete-classpath

Disk usage reports 2.8mb! Not bad:

$ du -h ./helloworld 
2.8M    ./helloworld

Time usage via both time and gnu-time commands:

$ gtime -v ./helloworld
Hello world
        Command being timed: "./helloworld"
        User time (seconds): 0.00
        System time (seconds): 0.00
        Percent of CPU this job got: 57%
        Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:00.00
        Average shared text size (kbytes): 0
        Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0
        Average stack size (kbytes): 0
        Average total size (kbytes): 0
        Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 2072
        Average resident set size (kbytes): 0
        Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 0
        Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 657
        Voluntary context switches: 0
        Involuntary context switches: 11
        Swaps: 0
        File system inputs: 0
        File system outputs: 0
        Socket messages sent: 0
        Socket messages received: 0
        Signals delivered: 0
        Page size (bytes): 4096
        Exit status: 0


$ time ./helloworld
Hello world
./helloworld  0.00s user 0.00s system 56% cpu 0.006 total

Looking at the results, they almost look comparable but of course this is just a simplified example and does not show a lot of info. I will certainly explore more of the examples given by the GraalVM team.

Let me know what you think.

Comments

[maartyl]

Thank you for informing me about the existence of GraalVM. I've never heard about it.

The binary size comparison is interesting.

As for measuring time: Doing it once is useless. The rest of the system surely impacted those times more than the programs themselves. Also, they are so tiny, they have no informative value. - All we know is that it does not start a runtime VM, that would take as long as JVM to start.

A more interesting "hello world" benchmark would be maybe something like: allocating a few hundred thousand objects and sorting them - repeating 50 times, or so.

[Konstantin Ignatyev]

Just for fun I have implemented a decent utility in Java, Rust, Go, and then modified Java version to be compile it to native image. Surprisingly: Java based native image outperformed even Rust version. I suspect that it can be attributed to high quality implementation of JSON parser. 93ms vs 125ms

github.com/kgignatyev/hiera-ctp

[Theofanis Despoudis]

Feel free to try it out.

[özkan pakdil]

both are 2mb I was expecting far more smaller from golang :) I am starting to think graalvm started to just match golang :)

but I must say java still looks nicer to me as language.