-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
[red-knot] add a large-union-of-string-literals benchmark #17393
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not familiar with the existing benchmark setup here, and I see that we do the same thing for
benchmark_cold, so this is more of a question: how can we be sure that we are actually re-inferring types in this call here (instead of relying on salsa-cached values)?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not an expert on this benchmark setup either, but I think the answer is our use of
iter_batched_ref, which (per the documentation) treats the input data from the first closure as non-reusable. So it generates a batch of input data by running the first closure (setup) multiple times, then runs the second closure (timed) for each input in the batch. This means that each timed execution of the "check" is running on a brand-new separate Salsa db, with a new memory file system, etc -- they are fully isolated.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh — thanks for the explanation. I was wrongly assuming the "setup" to only run once for some reason (same terminology but different functionality in other benchmarking libraries).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think Criterion offers both; if the artifacts from the setup are reusable and only need to be created once, you use
iter(this is the more common/basic case), if the setup artifacts are non-reusable and need to be generated once per execution, then you useiter_batched/iter_batched_ref. (I don't find those method names very inherently clear, but the docs are useful.)