perf: use samplesLength instead of multiple use samples.length

[Dunqing]

No description provided.

[Dunqing]

If the number of samples is very large, calling sort() can be very expensive.

[Aslemammad]

what do these lines do exactly?

[Dunqing]

Get the max and min values, This way we don't have to call sort() again.

[Aslemammad]

Do you have any benchmark that approves these changes?

[Dunqing]

Here are the results of my benchmark. 2.x faster than before

┌─────────┬─────────────────┬─────────┬────────────────────┬──────────┬─────────┐
│ (index) │    Task Name    │ ops/sec │ Average Time (ns)  │  Margin  │ Samples │
├─────────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┤
│    0    │ 'before change' │   '0'   │ 1024660996.7470169 │ '±4.00%' │   50    │
│    1    │ 'after change'  │   '2'   │ 405250253.31020355 │ '±1.01%' │   50    │
└─────────┴─────────────────┴─────────┴────────────────────┴──────────┴─────────┘```

These codes for benchmark

import { Bench as BeforeBench } from 'oldtinybench';
import { Bench } from 'tinybench';

const bench = new Bench({
  iterations: 50,
});

const testFunction = async (BenchC: typeof Bench) => {
  const bb = new BenchC({ time: 100 });

  bb
    .add('faster task', () => {
      // console.log('I am faster');
    })
    .add('slower task', async () => {
      await new Promise((r) => setTimeout(r, 1)); // we wait 1ms :)
      // console.log('I am slower');
    })
    .todo('unimplemented bench');

  await bb.run();
};

bench
  .add('before change', () => testFunction(BeforeBench))
  .add('after change', () => testFunction(Bench));

await bench.warmup();
await bench.run();

console.table(bench.table());

[Aslemammad]

samplesLength

[Aslemammad]

if we want to get the min and max, we need to return them actually, and when you do, add it to the documentation.

[Aslemammad]

And aren't they in the wrong order? min should be -Infinity.

[Dunqing]

if we want to get the min and max, we need to return them actually, and when you do, add it to the documentation.

I do not understand what you're saying. There were min and max in the first place just a different way to get them.

And aren't they in the wrong order? min should be -Infinity.

I think you may have misunderstood. If min is -Infinity it means that there is no value smaller than this min

[Aslemammad]

Oh I get it now.

[Aslemammad]

I do not understand what you're saying. There were min and max in the first place just a different way to get them.

Yes, we used to get them by samples[samples.length] for instance, but since we do not sort now, we need to return them along other results like mean, variance, ...

[Dunqing]

I do not understand what you're saying. There were min and max in the first place just a different way to get them.

Yes, we used to get them by samples[samples.length] for instance, but since we do not sort now, we need to return them along other results like mean, variance, ...

Oh, I got it. Looks like we still need to call sort() otherwise the result will be incorrect

[Aslemammad]

based on the new changes, can you send the new benchmarks? I'd appreciate it.

[Dunqing]

based on the new changes, can you send the new benchmarks? I'd appreciate it.

Looks like the changes have little difference in performance

➜ npx tsx  ./src/test-tinybench.ts
┌─────────┬─────────────────┬─────────┬────────────────────┬──────────┬─────────┐
│ (index) │    Task Name    │ ops/sec │ Average Time (ns)  │  Margin  │ Samples │
├─────────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┤
│    0    │ 'before change' │   '0'   │ 1023757644.1144943 │ '±3.63%' │   50    │
│    1    │ 'after change'  │   '0'   │ 1019888030.8961868 │ '±3.74%' │   50    │
└─────────┴─────────────────┴─────────┴────────────────────┴──────────┴─────────┘

[Aslemammad]

Let's remove the sort as I think it's better to not have it, but please also mention that in the docs. I believe the min/max approach is much better.

[Dunqing]

Let's remove the sort as I think it's better to not have it, but please also mention that in the docs. I believe the min/max approach is much better.

p75, p99, p995, p999 depend on sort(). I haven't figured out a way around that yet.