Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: add cva to benchmarks #178

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 13, 2024
Merged

docs: add cva to benchmarks #178

merged 1 commit into from
May 13, 2024

Conversation

mskelton
Copy link
Collaborator

@mskelton mskelton commented Apr 6, 2024

Fixes #134

Adds CVA to the benchmarks since a lot of folks often want to compare the perf of the two libraries.

There are only two benchmarks for CVA since it doesn't support slots.

TV without slots & tw-merge (enabled) x 743,372 ops/sec ±0.62% (93 runs sampled)
TV without slots & tw-merge (disabled) x 1,006,953 ops/sec ±0.27% (95 runs sampled)
TV with slots & tw-merge (enabled) x 304,484 ops/sec ±1.21% (96 runs sampled)
TV with slots & tw-merge (disabled) x 343,062 ops/sec ±1.04% (98 runs sampled)
TV without slots & custom tw-merge config x 729,188 ops/sec ±1.28% (96 runs sampled)
TV with slots & custom tw-merge config x 404,001 ops/sec ±0.22% (98 runs sampled)
CVA without slots & tw-merge (enabled) x 1,039,518 ops/sec ±0.20% (100 runs sampled)
CVA without slots & tw-merge (disabled) x 1,915,606 ops/sec ±1.87% (97 runs sampled)
Fastest is CVA without slots & tw-merge (disabled)

@mskelton
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jrgarciadev Could I get a review on this?

@jrgarciadev jrgarciadev merged commit e4811f6 into main May 13, 2024
4 checks passed
@jrgarciadev jrgarciadev deleted the cva-benchmark branch May 13, 2024 01:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add CVA to benchmarks for more clear comparison of perf
2 participants