edit: This was an April’s fools joke. However, bunny will remain functional. It’s only implemented as a thing wrapper around benchee so unless we completely break API (which I don’t see coming) it’ll remain functional. Continue reading for cute bunny pictures.
It is time for benchee to take the next step in its evolution as one of the prime benchmarking libraries. Going forward benchee will be called bunny!
We waited for this very special day to announce this very special naming change – what better day to announce something is being named bunny than Easter Sunday?
For now bunny still works a lot like benchee. However, it exposes a better and more expressive API for your pleasure. You know, bunny can’t only run like the good old benchee. No! Bunny can also sleep, hop, eat and jump!
This all comes with your own personal bunny assistant that helps you benchmark:
After all this hard work, the bunny needs to sleep a bit though:
This is clearly better than any other (benchmarking) library out there. What are you waiting for? Go and get bunny now. Also, I mean… just LOOK AT THEM!
I wrote a nice blog post for the company I’m working at (Liefery) called “The curious case of the query that gets slower the fewer elements it affects“, which goes through a real world benchmarking with benchee. It involves a couple of things that can go wrong but how combined indexes and PostgreSQL’s EXPLAIN ANALYZE can help you overcome it problems. It’s honestly one of the blog posts I think I ever wrote so head over and read it if that sounds interesting to you 🙂
It’s been a little time since the last benchee release, have we been lazy? Au contraire mes ami! We’ve been hard at work, greatly improving the internals, adding a full system for hooks (before_scenarion, before_each, after_each, after_scenario) and some other great improvements thanks to many contributions. The releases are benchee 0.10.0 (CHANGELOG), benchee_csv 0.7.0 (CHANGELOG), benchee_html 0.4.0 (CHANGELOG) and benchee_json 0.4.0 (CHANGELOG).
Sooo… what’s up? Why did it take so long?
Before we take a look at the exciting new features, here’s a small summary of major things that happened in previous releases that I didn’t manage to blog about due to lack of time:
0.7.0 added mainly convenience features, but benchee_html 0.2.0 split up the HTML reports which made it easier to find what you’re looking for but also alleviated problems with rendering huge data sets (the graphing library was reaching its limits with that many graphs and input values)
0.8.0 added type specs for the major public functions, configuration is now a struct so errors out on unrecognized options
0.9.0 is one of my favorite releases as it now gathers and shows system data like number of cores, operating system, memory and cpu speed. I love this, because normally when I benchmark I and write about it I need to write it up in the blog post. Now with benchee I can just copy & paste the output and I get all the information that I need! This version also facilitates calling benchee from Erlang, so benchee:run is in the cards.
Now ahead, to the truly new stuff:
In benchee each processing step used to have its own main key in the main data structure (suite): run_times, statistics, jobs etc. Philosophically, that was great. However, it got more cumbersome in the formatters especially after the introduction of inputs as access now required an additional level of indirection (namely, the input). As a result, to get all the data for a combination of job and input you want to format you have got to merge the data of multiple different sources. Not exactly ideal. To make matters worse, we want to add memory measurements in the future… even more to merge.
Long story short, Devon and I sat down in person for 2 hours to discuss how to best deal with this, how to name it and all accompanying fields. We decided to keep all the data together from now on – for every entry of the result. That means each combination of a job you defined and an input. The data structure now keeps that along with its raw run times, statistics etc. After some research we settled on calling it a scenario.
It took a long time, but it didn’t add any new features – so no reason for a release yet. Plus, of course all formatters also needed to get updated.
Another huge chunk of work went into a hooks system that is pretty fully featured. It allows you to execute code before and after invoking the benchmark as well as setup code before a scenario starts running and teardown code for after a scenario stopped running.
That seems weird, as most of the time you won’t need hooks. We could have released with part of the system ready, but I didn’t want to (potentially) break API again and so soon if we added arguments or found that it wasn’t quite working to our liking. So, we took some time to get everything in.
So what did we want to enable you to do?
Load a record from the database in before_each and pass it to the benchmarking function, to perform an operation with it without counting the time for loading the record towards the benchmarking results
Start up a process/service in before_scenario that you need for your scenario to run, and then…
…shut it down again in after_scenario, or bust a cache
Or if you want your benchmarks to run without a cache all the time, you can also bust it in before_each or after_each
after_each is also passed the return value of the benchmarking function so you can run assertions on it – for instance for all the jobs to see if they are truly doing the same thing
before_each could also be used to randomize the input a bit to benchmark a more diverse set of inputs without the randomizing counting towards the measured times
All of these hooks can be configured either globally so that they run for all the benchmarking jobs or they can be configured on a per job basis. The documentation for hooks over at the repo is a little blog post by itself and I won’t repeat it here 😉
As a little example, here is me benchmarking hound:
Hound needs to start before we can benchmark it. Howeer, hound seems to remember the started process by the pid of self() at that time. That’s a problem because each benchee scenario runs in its own process, so you couldn’t just start it before invoking Benchee.run. I found no way to make the benchmark work with good old benchee 0.9.0, which is also what finally brought me to implement this feature. Now in benchee 0.10.0 with before_scenario and after_scenario it is perfectly feasible!
Why no 1.0?
With all the major improvements one could easily call this a 1.0. Or 0.6.0 could have been a 1.0 then we’d be at 2.0 now – wow that sounds mature!
Well, I see 1.0 as a promise – a promise for plugin developers and others that compatibility won’t be broken easily and not soon. Can’t promise this when we just broke plugin compatibility in a major way. That said, I really feel good about the new structure, partly because we put so much time and thought into figuring it out, but also because it has greatly simplified some implementations and thinking about some future features it also makes them a lot easier to implement.
Of course, we didn’t break compatibility for users. That has been stable since 0.6.0 and to a (quite big) extent beyond that.
So, 1.0 will of course be coming some time. We might get some more bigger features in that could break compatibility (although I don’t think they will, it will just be new fields):
Measuring memory consumption
recording and loading benchmarking results
Also before a 1.0 release I probably want to extract more not directly benchmarking related functionality from benchee and provide as general purpose libraries. We have some sub systems that we build for us and would provide value to other applications:
Unit: convert units (durations, counts, memory etc.), scale them to a “best fit” unit, format them accordingly, find a best fit unit for a collection of values
Statistics: All the statistics we provide including not so easy/standard ones like nth percentile and mode
System: gather system data like elixir/erlang version, CPU, Operating System, memory, number of cores
Thanks to the design of benchee these are all already fairly separate so extracting them is more a matter of when, not how. Meaning, that we have all the functionality in those libraries that we need so that we don’t have to make a coordinated release for new features across n libraries.
Especially due to many great community contributions (maybe because of Hacktoberfest?) there’s a number of stellar improvements!
System information is now also available and you can toggle it with the link in the top right
unit scaling from benchee “core” is now also used so it’s not all in micro seconds as before but rather an appropriate unit
reports are automatically opened in your browser after the formatter is done (can of course be deactivated)
there is a default file name now so you don’t HAVE to supply it
Well this release took long – hope the next one won’t take as long. There’s a couple of improvements that didn’t quite make it into the release so there might be a smaller new release relatively soon. Other than that, work on either serializing or the often requested “measure memory consumption” will probably start some time. But first, we rest a bit 😉
Hope you enjoy benchmarking and if you are missing a feature or getting hit by a bug, please open an issue ❤
I’m at Elixirlive in Warsaw right now and just gave a talk. This talk is about benchmarking – the greater concepts but concrete examples are in Elixir and it works with my very own library benchee to also show some surprising Elixir benchmarks. The concepts are applicable in general and it also gets into categorizing benchmarks into micro/macro/application etc.
If you’ve been here and have feedback – positive or negative. Please tell me 🙂
“What’s the fastest way of doing this?” – you might ask yourself during development. Sure, you can guess what’s fastest or how long something will take, but do you know? How long does it take to sort a list of 1 Million elements? Are tail-recursive functions always the fastest?
Benchmarking is here to answer these questions. However, there are many pitfalls around setting up a good benchmark and interpreting the results. This talk will guide you through, introduce best practices and show you some surprising benchmarking results along the way.
I’m the proudest and happiest of finally getting benchee_html out of the door along with great HTML reports including plenty of graphs and the ability to export them! You can check out the example online report or glance at this screenshot of it:
While benchee_csv had some mere updates for compatibility and benchee_json just transforms the general suite to JSON (which is then used in the HTML formatter) I’m particularly excited about the big new features in benchee and of course benchee_html!
The 0.6.0 is probably the biggest release of the “core” benchee library with some needed API changes and great features.
New run API – options last as keyword list
The “old” way you’d optionally pass in options as the first argument into run as a map and then define the jobs to benchmark in another map. I did this because in my mind the configuration comes first and maps are much easier to work with through pattern matching as opposed to keyword lists. However, having an optional first argument already felt kind of weird…
Thing is, that’s not the most elixir way to do this. It is rather conventional to pass in options as the last argument and as a keyword list. After voicing my concerns in the elixirforum, the solution was to allow passing in options as keyword lists but convert to maps internally to still have the advantage of good pattern matching among other advantages.
The old style still works (thanks to pattern matching!) – but it might get deprecated in the future. In this process though the run interface of the very first version of run, which used a list of tuples, doesn’t work anymore 😦
The great new feature is that benchee now supports multiple inputs – so that in one suite you can run the same functions against multiple different inputs. That is important as functions can behave very differently on inputs of different sizes or a different structure. Therefore it’s good to check the functions against multiple inputs. The feature was inspired by a discussion on an elixir issue with José Valim.
So what does this look like? Here it goes:
The hard thing about it was that it changed how benchmarking results had to be represented internally, as another level to represent the different inputs was needed. This lead to quite some work both in benchee and in plugins – but in the end it was all worth it 🙂
This has been in the making for way too long, should have released a month or 2 ago. But now it’s here! It provides a nice HTML table and four different graphs – 2 for comparing the different benchmarking jobs and 2 graphs for each individual job to take a closer look at the distribution of run times of this particular job. There is a wiki page at benchee_html to discern between the different graphs highlighting what they might be useful for. You can also export PNG images of the graphs at click of a simple icon 🙂
Wonder how to use it? Well it was already shown earlier in this post when showing off the new API. You just specify the formatters and the file where it should be written to 🙂
But without further ado you can check out the sample report or just take a look at these images 🙂
Hope you enjoy benchmarking, with different inputs and then see great reports of them. Let me know what you like about benchee or what you don’t like about it and what could be better.
This release mainly focusses on making all non essential output that benchee produces optional. This is mostly rooted in user feedback of people who wanted to disable the fast execution warnings or the comparison report. I decided to go full circle and also make it configurable if benchee prints out which job it is currently benchmarking or if the general configuration information is printed. I like this sort of verbose information and progress feedback – but clearly it’s not to everyone’s taste and that’s just fine 🙂
So what’s next for benchee? As a keen github observer might have noticed I’ve taken a fewstabs at rendering charts in HTML + JS for benchee and in the process created benchee_json. I’m a bit dissatisfied as of now, as I’d really want to have graphs showing error bars and that seems to be harder to come by than I thought. After D3 and chart.js I’ll probably give highcharts a stab now. However, just reading the non-commercial terms again I’m not too sure if it’s good in all sense (e.g. what happens if someone in a commercial corporation uses and generates the HTML?). Oh, but the wonders of the Internet in a new search I found plotly which seems to have some great error bars support.
Other future plans include benchmarking with multiple input sizes to see how different approaches perform or the good old topic of lessening the impact of garbage collection 🙂
Yesterday I released benchee 0.3.0! Benchee is a tool for (micro) benchmarking in elixir focussing on being simple, extensible and to provide you with good statistics. You can refer to the Changelog for detailed information about the changes. This post will look at the bigger changes and also give a bit of the why for the new features and changes.
Arguably the biggest feature in Benchee 0.3.0 is that it is now easy and built-in to configure multiple formatters for a benchmarking suite. This means that first the benchmark is run, and then multiple formatters are run on the benchmarking results. This way you can get both the console output and the corresponding csv file using BencheeCSV. This was a pain point for me before, as you could either get one or the other or you needed to use the more verbose API.
You can also see the new output/1 methods at work, as opposed to format/1 they also really do the output themselves. BencheeCSV uses a custom configuration options to know which file to write to. This is also new, as now formatters have access to the full benchmarking suite, including configuration, raw run times and function definitions. This way they can be configured using configuration options they define themselves, or a plugin could graph all run times if it wanted to.
Of course, formatters default to just the built-in console formatter.
Another big addition is parallel benchmarking. In Elixir, this just feels natural to have. You can specify a parallel key in the configuration and that tells Benchee how many tasks should execute any given benchmarking job in parallel.
Of course, if you want to see how a system behaves under load – overloading might be exactly what you want to stress test the system. And this was exactly the reason why Leon contributed this change back to Benchee:
I needed to benchmark integration tests for a telephony system we wrote – with this system the tests actually interfere with each other (they’re using an Ecto repo) and I wanted to see how far I could push the system as a whole. Making this small change to Benchee worked perfectly for what I needed 🙂
(Of course it makes me extremely happy that people found adjusting Benchee for their use case simple, that’s one of the main goals of Benchee. Even better that it was contributed back ❤ )
If you want to see more information and detail about “to benchmark in parallel or not” you can check the Benchee wiki. Spoiler alert: The more parallel benchmarks run, the slower they get to an acceptable degree until the system is overloaded (more tasks execute in parallel than there are CPU cores to take care of them). Also deviation skyrockets.
While the effect seems not to be very significant for parallel: 2 on my system, the default in Benchee remains parallel: 1 for the mentioned reasons.
Print configuration information
Partly also due to the parallel change, Benchee wil now print a brief summary of the benchmarking suite before executing it.
tobi@happy ~/github/benchee $ mix run samples/run_parallel.exs
Benchmark suite executing with the following configuration:
Estimated total run time: 10.0s
Name ips average deviation median
map.flatten 1268.15 788.55μs (±13.94%) 759.00μs
flat_map 706.35 1415.72μs (±8.56%) 1419.00μs
flat_map 706.35 - 1.80x slower
This was done so that when people share their benchmarks online one can easily see the configuration they ran it with. E.g. was there any warmup time? Was the amount of parallel tasks too high and therefore the results are that bad?
It also prints an estimated total run time (number of jobs * (warmup + time)), so you know if there’s enough time to go and get a coffee before a benchmark finishes.
Map instead of a list of tuples
What is also marked as a “breaking” change in the Changelog is actually not THAT breaking. The main data structure handed to Benchee.run was changed to a map instead of a list of tuples and all corresponding data structures changed as well (important for plugins to know).
It used to be a list of tuples because of the possibility that benchmarks with the same name would override each other. However, having benchmarks with the same name is nonsensical as you can’t discern their results in the output any way. So, this now feels like a much more fitting data structure.
The old main data structure of a list of tuples still works and while I might remove it, I don’t expect me to right now as all that is required to maintain it is 4 lines of code. This makes duplicated names no longer working the only real deprecation, although one might even call it a feature 😉
Last, but not least, this release is the first one that got some community contributions in, which makes me extremely happy. So, thanks Alvin and Leon! 😀
(Automatic) Tail Call Optimization (TCO) is that great feature of Elixir and Erlang that everyone tells you about. It’s super fast, super cool and you should definitely always aim to make every recursive function tail-recursive. What if I told you that body-recursive functions can be faster and more memory efficient than their especially optimized tail-recursive counter parts?
Seems unlikely, doesn’t it? After all every beginners book will mention TCO, tell you how efficient it is and that you should definitely use it. Plus, maybe you’ve tried body-recusion before in language X and your call stack blew up or it was horrendously slow. I did and I thought tail-recursive functions were always better than body-recursive. Until one day, by accident, I wrote a none tail-recursive function (so TCO didn’t apply to it). Someone told me and eagerly I replaced it with its tail-recursive counterpart. Then, I stopped for a second and benchmarked it – the results were surprising to say the least.
(…) it ends up calling itself. In many languages, that adds a new frame to the stack. After a large number of messages, you might run out of memory.
This doesn’t happen in Elixir, as it implements tail-call optimization. If the last thing a function does is call itself, there’s no need to make the call. Instead, the runtime simply jumps back to the start of the function. If the recursive call has arguments, then these replace the original parameters.
Well, let’s get into this 🙂
Writing a map implementation
So let’s write an implementation of the map function. One will be body-recursive, one will be tail-recursive. I’ll add another tail-recursive implementation using ++ but no reverse and one that just does not reverse the list in the end. The one that doesn’t reverse the list of course isn’t functionally equivalent to the others as the elements are not in order, but if you wrote your own function and don’t care about ordering this might be for you. In an update here I also added a version where the argument order is different, for more on this see the results and edit6.
map_body here is the function I originally wrote. It is not tail-recursive as the last operation in this method is the list append operation, not the call to map_body. Comparing it to all the other implementations, I’d also argue it’s the easiest and most readable as we don’t have to care about accumulators or reversing the list.
Now that we have the code, let us benchmark the functions with benchee! Benchmark run on Elixir 1.3 with Erlang 19 on an i7-4790 on Linux Mint 17.3. Let’s just map over a large list and add one to each element of the list. We’ll also throw in the standard library implementation of map as a comparison baseline:
For the more visual here is also a graph showcasing the results (visualized using benchee_csv):
So what do we see? The body-recursive function seems to be as fast as the version from standard library. The reported values are faster, but well within the margin of error. Plus the median of the two is the same while standard deviation is higher for the standard library version. This hints at the possibility that the worse average may be through some outliers (resulting f.ex. from Garbage Collection). The tail-recursive version with ++ is VERY SLOW but that’s because appending with ++ so frequently is a bad idea as it needs to go to the end of the linked list every time around (O(n)). But that’s not the main point.
The main point is that the tail-recursive version is about 14% slower! Even the tail-recursive version that doesn’t reverse the list is slower than the body-recursive implementation!
Here seems like a good point to interject and mention that it was brought up in the comments (see edit11) that for significantly larger lists tail-recursive implementations get faster again. You can check out the results from a 10 Million item list.
What is highly irritating and surprising to me is that the tail-recursive function with a slightly different argument order is significantly faster than my original implementation, almost 10%. And this is not a one off – it is consistently faster across a number of runs. You can see more about that implementation in edit6 below. Thankfully José Valim chimed in about the argument order adding the following:
The order of arguments will likely matter when we generate the branching code. The order of arguments will specially matter if performing binary matching. The order of function clauses matter too although I am not sure if it is measurable (if the empty clause comes first or last).
Now, maybe there is a better tail-recursive version (please tell me!) but this result is rather staggering but repeatable and consistent. So, what happened here?
An apparently common misconception
That tail-recursive functions are always faster seems to be a common misconception – common enough that it made the list of Erlang Performance Myths as “Myth: Tail-Recursive Functions are Much Faster Than Recursive Functions”! (Note: this section is currently being reworked so the name might change/link might not lead to it directly any more in the near-ish future)
To quote that:
A body-recursive list function and a tail-recursive function that calls lists:reverse/1 at the end will use the same amount of memory. lists:map/2, lists:filter/2, list comprehensions, and many other recursive functions now use the same amount of space as their tail-recursive equivalents.
So, which is faster? It depends. On Solaris/Sparc, the body-recursive function seems to be slightly faster, even for lists with a lot of elements. On the x86 architecture, tail-recursion was up to about 30% faster
The topic also recently came up on the erlang-questions mailing list again while talking about the rework of the aforementioned Erlang performance myths site (which is really worth the read!). In it Fred Hebert remarks (emphasis added by me):
In cases where all your function does is build a new list (or any other accumulator whose size is equivalent to the number of iterations and hence the stack) such as map/2 over nearly any data structure or say zip/2 over lists, body recursion may not only be simpler, but also faster and save memory over time.
I had the same question. From my experience with the clojure koans I expected the body-recursive function to blow up the call stack given a large enough input. But, I didn’t manage to – no matter what I tried.
Seems it is impossible as the BEAM VM, that Erlang and Elixir run in, differs in its implementation from other VMs, the body recursion is limited by RAM:
Erlang has no recursion limit. It is tail call optimised. If the recursive call is not a tail call it is limited by available RAM
So what about memory consumption? Let’s create a list with one hundred million elements (100_000_000) and map over it measuring the memory consumption. When this is done the tail-recursive version takes almost 13 Gigabytes of memory while the body-recursive version takes a bit more than 11.5 Gigabytes. Details can be found in this gist.
Why is that? Well most likely here with the large list it is because the tail recursive version needs to create a new reversed version of the accumulator to return a correct result.
Body-recursive functions all the time now?
So let’s recap, the body-recursive version of map is:
consumes less memory
easier to read and maintain
So why shouldn’t we do this every time? Well there are other examples of course. Let’s take a look at a very dumb function deciding whether a number is even (implemented as a homage to this clojure kaons exercise that showed how the call stack blows up in Clojure without recur):
The tail-recursive version here is still 10% slower. But what about memory? Running the function with one hundred million as input takes 41 Megabyte for the tail-recursive version (mind you, this is the whole elixir process) but almost 6.7 Gigabyte for the body-recursive version. Also, for that huge input the tail-recursive version took 1.3 seconds, while the body-recursive function took 3.86 seconds. So for larger inputs, it is faster.
Stark contrast, isn’t it? That’s most likely because this time around there is no huge list to be carried around or accumulated – just a boolean and a number. Here the effect that the body-recursive function needs to save its call stack in the RAM has a much more damaging effect, as it needs to call itself one hundred million times.
Tail-recursive functions still should be faster and more efficient for many or most use cases. Or that’s what I believe through years of being taught that tail call optimization leads to the fastest recursive functions ;). This post isn’t to say that TCO is bad or slow. It is here to say and highlight that there are cases where body-recursive functions are faster and more efficient than tail-recursive functions. I’m also still unsure why the tail-recursive function that does not reverse the list is still slower than the body-recursive version – it might be because it has to carry the accumulator around.
Maybe we should also take a step back in education and teaching and be more careful not to overemphasize tail call optimization and with it tail-recursive functions. Body-recursive functions can be a viable, or even superior, alternative and they should be presented as such.
No, the main case where is TCO is critical is in process top-loops. These functions never return (unless the process dies) so they will build up stack never to release it. Here you have to get it right. There are no alternatives. The same applies if you top-loop is actually composed of a set of mutually calling functions. There there are no alternatives. Sorry for pushing this again, and again, but it is critical.
But what does this teach us in the end? Don’t take your assumptions stemming from other programming environments for granted. Also, don’t assume – always proof. So let’s finish with the closing words of the Erlang performance myths section on this:
So, the choice is now mostly a matter of taste. If you really do need the utmost speed, you must measure. You can no longer be sure that the tail-recursive list function always is the fastest.
edit3/addendum2: The small tries mentioned in the first addendum were run in the shell which is not a great idea, using my little erlang knowledge I made something that compiled that “benchmark” and map_body is as fast/faster again thread. Benchmarking can be fickle and wrong if not done right, so would still look forward to run this in a proper Erlang benchmarking tool or use Benchee from Erlang. But no time right now 😦
edit4: Added comment from Robert Virding regarding process top loops and how critical TCO is there. Thanks for reading, I’m honoured and surprised that one of the creators of Erlang read this 🙂 His full post is of course worth a read.
edit5: Following the rightful nitpick I don’t write “tail call optimized” functions any more but rather “tail-recursive” as tail call optimization is more of a feature of the compiler and not directly an attribute of the function
edit6: Included another version in the benchmark that swaps the argument order so that the list stays the first argument and the accumulator is the last argument. Surprisingly (yet again) this version is constantly faster than the other tail-recursive implementation but still slower than body recursive. I want to thank Paweł for pointing his version out in the comments. The reversed argument order was the only distinguishing factor I could make out in his version, not the assignment of the new accumulator. I benchmarked all the different variants multiple times. It is consistently faster, although I could never reproduce it being the fastest. For the memory consumption example it seemed to consume about 300MB less than the original tail-recursive function and was a bit faster. Also since I reran it either way I ran it with the freshly released Elixir 1.3 and Erlang 19. I also increased the runtime of the benchmark as well as the warmup (to 10 and 10) to get more consistent results overall. And I wrote a new benchmarking script so that the results shown in the graph are from the same as the console output.
edit7: Added a little TCO intro as it might be helpful for some 🙂
Less than a week after the initial release of my benchmarking library Benchee there is a new version – 0.2.0! The details are in the Changelog. That’s the what, but what about the why?
Arguably the biggest change is introduction of a warmup phase to the benchmarks. That is the benchmark jobs are first run for some time without taking measurements to simulate a “warm” already running system. I didn’t think it’d be that important as the BEAM VM isn’t JITed (as opposed to the JVM) for all hat I know. It is important once benchmarks get to be “macro” – for instance databases usually respond faster once they got used to some queries and our webservers serve most of their time “hot”.
However, even in my micro benchmarks I noticed that it could have an effect when a benchmark was moved around (being run first versus being run last). So I don’t know to what effect, but at least to a small effect there is warmup now. If you don’t want warmup – just set warmup: 0.
Nicer console output
Name ips average deviation median
bodyrecusrive map 40047.87 24.97μs (±32.55%) 25.00μs
stdlib map 39724.07 25.17μs (±61.41%) 25.00μs
map tco no reverse 36388.50 27.48μs (±23.22%) 27.00μs
map with TCO and reverse 33309.43 30.02μs (±45.39%) 29.00μs
map with TCO and ++ 465.25 2149.40μs (±4.84%) 2138.00μs
bodyrecusrive map 40047.87
stdlib map 39724.07 - 1.01x slower
map tco no reverse 36388.50 - 1.10x slower
map with TCO and reverse 33309.43 - 1.20x slower
map with TCO and ++ 465.25 - 86.08x slower
The ouput of numbers is now aligned right, which makes them easier to read and compare, as you can see orders of magnitude differences much more easily. Also the ugly empty line at the end of the output has been removed 🙂
This is the API incompatible change. It felt weird to me in version 0.1.0 that Benchee.benchmark would already run the function given to it. Now the jobs are defined through Benchee.benchmark and kept in a datastructure (similar to the one Benchee.run uses). Benchee.measure then runs the jobs and measures the outcome and provides them under the new run_times key instead of overriding the jobs key. This feels much nicer overall, of course the high level Benchee.run is unaffected by this.
These additions already nicely improve what Benchee can do and got a couple of items off my “I want to do this in benchee” bucket list. There’s still more to come 🙂