Add small compress() benchmark #1721
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This minimal benchmark lets us test how long time it takes to do compress a small file.
The 1-byte compression will show the minimal time to initialize, compress and end, something we could use to calculate the maximum count we can do per second.. Lets call it COPS (Compression Operations Per Second).
The bigger sizes will spend more time doing payload compression, useful for adding some context to how much of the time is spent just doing init and end.
This PR lets us compare before/after code changes to see whether it affects COPS.
I intended to make one for decompress() as well, but never got around to it. It would need to compress multiple buffers during SetUp, to be able to do decompression on multiple sizes. It doesn't really need many different sizes though, I suggest
[1, 4096, 32768]. If anyone wants to make that, I'd appreciate it.