-
Kirill Smelkov authored
Compared to 0ed7b1fc there should not be a difference (checked only on serial cases with manually ediging 20180221-deco-noturbo-noz.txt-fix to use updated output format for wczblk1-8 dataset): $ benchstat -split node,cluster,dataset 20180221-deco-noturbo-noz.txt-fix 20180305-deco-noturbo-c.txt name old pystone/s new pystone/s delta node:deco pystone 221k ± 0% 219k ± 3% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) name old time/op new time/op delta node:deco sha1/py/1K 1.85µs ± 2% 1.84µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.508 n=5+5) sha1/go/1K 1.53µs ± 0% 1.53µs ± 0% ~ (p=0.103 n=5+5) sha1/py/4K 6.68µs ± 1% 6.69µs ± 0% ~ (p=0.151 n=5+5) sha1/go/4K 5.59µs ± 0% 5.59µs ± 0% ~ (p=0.333 n=5+5) sha1/py/2M 3.18ms ± 0% 3.18ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) sha1/go/2M 2.78ms ± 0% 2.78ms ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) unzlib/py/null-1K 2.81µs ± 0% 2.91µs ± 3% +3.49% (p=0.008 n=5+5) unzlib/go/null-1K 2.86µs ± 0% 2.88µs ± 1% +0.93% (p=0.008 n=5+5) unzlib/py/null-4K 11.3µs ± 1% 11.4µs ± 2% +0.89% (p=0.040 n=5+5) unzlib/go/null-4K 11.3µs ± 0% 11.4µs ± 0% +0.89% (p=0.008 n=5+5) unzlib/py/null-2M 5.71ms ± 5% 5.66ms ± 3% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) unzlib/go/null-2M 4.79ms ± 0% 4.79ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.095 n=5+5) unzlib/py/prod1-avg 5.02µs ± 1% 5.06µs ± 0% ~ (p=0.057 n=4+4) unzlib/go/prod1-avg 5.27µs ± 1% 5.33µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.087 n=5+5) unzlib/py/prod1-max 512µs ± 2% 438µs ± 5% -14.45% (p=0.008 n=5+5) unzlib/go/prod1-max 336µs ± 0% 352µs ± 4% +4.67% (p=0.008 n=5+5) disk/randread/direct/4K-min 105µs ± 1% 105µs ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) disk/randread/direct/4K-avg 144µs ± 0% 142µs ± 0% -1.54% (p=0.008 n=5+5) disk/randread/direct/2M-min 5.48ms ± 3% 5.34ms ± 3% ~ (p=0.135 n=5+5) disk/randread/direct/2M-avg 6.13ms ± 1% 6.04ms ± 2% ~ (p=0.056 n=5+5) disk/randread/pagecache/4K-min 570ns ± 1% 583ns ± 1% +2.28% (p=0.008 n=5+5) disk/randread/pagecache/4K-avg 975ns ± 0% 1003ns ± 1% +2.91% (p=0.008 n=5+5) disk/randread/pagecache/2M-min 195µs ± 4% 197µs ± 4% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) disk/randread/pagecache/2M-avg 214µs ± 0% 220µs ± 1% +2.80% (p=0.008 n=5+5) name old time/object new time/object delta cluster:deco dataset:wczblk1-8 fs1-zhash.py 20.3µs ± 1% 20.2µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.444 n=5+4) fs1-zhash.go 3.20µs ± 0% 3.20µs ± 0% ~ (all equal) fs1-zhash.go+prefetch128 4.16µs ± 4% 4.14µs ± 6% ~ (p=0.952 n=5+5) zeo/py/fs1-zhash.py 375µs ± 4% 379µs ± 3% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) neo/py/sqlite-zhash.py 355µs ± 6% 362µs ± 6% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) neo/py/sqlite-zhash.go 156µs ± 2% 158µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.151 n=5+5) neo/py/sqlite-zhash.go+prefetch128 134µs ± 2% 135µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) neo/py(!log)/sqlite-zhash.py 326µs ± 3% 335µs ± 4% ~ (p=0.381 n=5+5) neo/py(!log)/sqlite-zhash.go 143µs ± 3% 145µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.508 n=5+5) neo/py(!log)/sqlite-zhash.go+prefetch128 119µs ± 2% 118µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) neo/py/sql-zhash.py 466µs ±45% 392µs ± 5% ~ (p=0.111 n=5+4) neo/py/sql-zhash.go 201µs ± 2% 197µs ± 1% -1.63% (p=0.008 n=5+5) neo/py/sql-zhash.go+prefetch128 184µs ± 2% 180µs ± 2% -1.96% (p=0.032 n=5+5) neo/py(!log)/sql-zhash.py 375µs ± 2% 454µs ±61% ~ (p=0.286 n=4+5) neo/py(!log)/sql-zhash.go 182µs ± 2% 183µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.802 n=5+5) neo/py(!log)/sql-zhash.go+prefetch128 164µs ± 1% 164µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.881 n=5+5) neo/go/fs1-zhash.py 226µs ± 1% 227µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.397 n=5+5) neo/go/fs1-zhash.go 56.8µs ± 1% 56.9µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.889 n=5+5) neo/go/fs1-zhash.go+prefetch128 24.8µs ± 3% 24.7µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.651 n=5+5) neo/go/sqlite-zhash.py 264µs ± 4% 269µs ± 1% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) neo/go/sqlite-zhash.go 93.5µs ± 0% 92.7µs ± 0% -0.83% (p=0.008 n=5+5) neo/go/sqlite-zhash.go+prefetch128 39.3µs ± 4% 39.8µs ± 8% ~ (p=0.952 n=5+5) ( not sure what it was for unzlib/py/prod1-max - probaby some background process was also running last time at that test )
ea5f9d26