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

benchmark: bump eventemitter number of iterations #746

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

Some of the benchmarks that were added in commit 847b9d2 complete too
quickly to draw meaningful conclusions from. Increase the number of
iterations to make them run longer.

R=@mscdex?

Some of the benchmarks that were added in commit 847b9d2 complete too
quickly to draw meaningful conclusions from.  Increase the number of
iterations to make them run longer.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
var common = require('../common.js');
var EventEmitter = require('events').EventEmitter;

var bench = common.createBenchmark(main, {n: [25e4]});
var bench = common.createBenchmark(main, {n: [5e7]});
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why 5e7 on this one? (Why not just make them all, say, 2e7?)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some complete more quickly than others. This particular benchmark is the quickest of them all.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM though

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Feb 6, 2015

I did have a larger number of iterations on some of them, but I wasn't sure just how long people would want to wait to run them. I personally don't mind having them run longer.

I think ultimately using the benchmark.js module will give good, reliable numbers because I believe it does some analysis on the data before generating the results.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member Author

@mscdex Is that a LGTM? :-)

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

I think ultimately using the benchmark.js module will give good, reliable numbers because I believe it does some analysis on the data before generating the results.

Benchmark.js adapts based on each round. (or at least near the start..)

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Feb 6, 2015

@bnoordhuis Yeah LGTM

bnoordhuis added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2015
Some of the benchmarks that were added in commit 847b9d2 complete too
quickly to draw meaningful conclusions from.  Increase the number of
iterations to make them run longer.

PR-URL: #746
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
@micnic
Copy link
Contributor

micnic commented Feb 6, 2015

Landed in 2c3121c

@micnic micnic closed this Feb 6, 2015
kunalspathak referenced this pull request in kunalspathak/node Feb 26, 2017
Below are currently failing unit test cases
```cmd
    parallel/test-crypto-dh
	parallel/test-fs-stat
	parallel/test-fs-symlink
	parallel/test-promises-unhandled-rejections
	parallel/test-repl-mode
	parallel/test-repl-tab-complete
	parallel/test-regress-GH-746
	parallel/test-regress-GH-io-1068
	parallel/test-util-inspect-proxy
	parallel/test-vm-context
	parallel/test-vm-create-and-run-in-context
	parallel/test-vm-cached-data
	parallel/test-vm-global-identity
	parallel/test-vm-preserves-property
	parallel/test-vm-proxies
	parallel/test-vm-timeout
	addons/load-long-path/test
	known_issues/test-vm-function-redefinition
	sequential/test-vm-timeout-rethrow
```

PR-URL: nodejs/node-chakracore#71
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Jianchun Xu <[email protected]>
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.

4 participants