RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://dotnet.github.io/dotNext/benchmarks.html below:

Benchmarks | .NEXT

Benchmarks

Microbenchmarks are important part of DotNext library to prove than important features can speed up performance of your application or, at least, is not slowing down it.

The configuration of all benchmarks:

Parameter Configuration Runtime .NET 8.0.1 (8.0.123.58001), X64 RyuJIT AVX2 LaunchCount 1 RunStrategy Throughput OS Ubuntu 22.04.3 CPU Intel Core i7-6700HQ CPU 2.60GHz (Skylake) Number of CPUs 1 Physical Cores 4 Logical Cores 8 RAM 24 GB

You can run benchmarks using Bench build configuration as follows:

cd <dotnext-clone-path>/src/DotNext.Benchmarks
dotnet run -c Bench

Bitwise Hash Code

This benchmark compares performance of BitwiseComparer<T>.GetHashCode and GetHashCode instance method for the types Guid and custom value type with multiple fields.

Method Mean Error StdDev Guid.GetHashCode 0.6889 ns 0.0085 ns 0.0076 ns BitwiseComparer<Guid>.GetHashCode 6.3194 ns 0.0223 ns 0.0209 ns BitwiseComparer<LargeStructure>.GetHashCode 20.6265 ns 0.0839 ns 0.0785 ns LargeStructure.GetHashCode 43.5677 ns 0.1517 ns 0.1419 ns

Bitwise hash code algorithm is slower than JIT optimizations introduced by .NET 6 but still convenient in complex cases.

Bytes to Hex

This benchmark demonstrates performance of extension methods declared in DotNext.Buffers.Text.Hex class that allows to convert arbitrary set of bytes to hexadecimal form.

Method Bytes Mean Error StdDev Median Ratio RatioSD Convert.ToHexString 1024 bytes 674.47 ns 13.196 ns 12.343 ns 674.80 ns 1.00 0.00 Hex.EncodeToUtf16 1024 bytes 656.28 ns 6.336 ns 5.617 ns 655.19 ns 0.97 0.02 Hex.EncodeToUtf8 1024 bytes 363.58 ns 5.733 ns 4.788 ns 365.53 ns 0.54 0.01 Convert.ToHexString 128 bytes 95.06 ns 4.340 ns 12.798 ns 100.99 ns 1.00 0.00 Hex.EncodeToUtf16 128 bytes 93.22 ns 1.932 ns 2.645 ns 93.51 ns 1.15 0.18 Hex.EncodeToUtf8 128 bytes 49.02 ns 1.045 ns 0.926 ns 48.77 ns 0.62 0.08 Convert.ToHexString 16 bytes 24.21 ns 0.971 ns 2.800 ns 23.64 ns 1.00 0.00 Hex.EncodeToUtf16 16 bytes 26.29 ns 1.050 ns 3.096 ns 25.79 ns 1.10 0.19 Hex.EncodeToUtf8 16 bytes 20.44 ns 0.264 ns 0.234 ns 20.39 ns 0.71 0.04 Convert.ToHexString 256 bytes 169.86 ns 2.322 ns 2.172 ns 169.59 ns 1.00 0.00 Hex.EncodeToUtf16 256 bytes 147.84 ns 1.522 ns 1.350 ns 147.84 ns 0.87 0.01 Hex.EncodeToUtf8 256 bytes 73.90 ns 0.732 ns 0.649 ns 73.99 ns 0.44 0.01 Convert.ToHexString 512 bytes 316.92 ns 6.290 ns 6.177 ns 316.16 ns 1.00 0.00 Hex.EncodeToUtf16 512 bytes 297.29 ns 5.743 ns 5.372 ns 297.34 ns 0.94 0.02 Hex.EncodeToUtf8 512 bytes 137.94 ns 2.712 ns 2.537 ns 137.76 ns 0.44 0.01 Convert.ToHexString 64 bytes 43.90 ns 0.947 ns 1.955 ns 43.11 ns 1.00 0.00 Hex.EncodeToUtf16 64 bytes 39.29 ns 0.125 ns 0.111 ns 39.23 ns 0.88 0.03 Hex.EncodeToUtf8 64 bytes 25.28 ns 0.271 ns 0.240 ns 25.23 ns 0.56 0.02 Atomic Access to Arbitrary Value Type

This benchmark compares performance of Atomic<T> and Synchronized methods. The implementation of the benchmark contains concurrent read/write threads to ensure that lock contention is in place.

Method Mean Error StdDev Median Atomic 589.5 us 11.30 us 105.0 us 576.9 us Synchronized 1,005.4 us 12.59 us 117.3 us 981.7 us SpinLock 1,359.3 us 65.59 us 628.4 us 1,573.7 us File-buffering Writer

This benchmark compares performance of FileBufferingWriteStream from ASP.NET Core and FileBufferingWriter from .NEXT library.

Both classes switching from in-memory buffer to file-based buffer during benchmark execution. Note that benchmark result highly depends on disk I/O performance. The following results were obtained using NVMe SSD.

Method Mean Error StdDev Gen0 Gen1 Gen2 Allocated 'FileBufferingWriter, synchronous mode' 934.7 us 8.52 us 7.97 us 250.0000 249.0234 249.0234 1 MB 'FileBufferingWriter, asynchronous mode' 1,306.9 us 25.69 us 44.31 us 195.3125 195.3125 195.3125 1 MB 'FileBufferingWriteStream, synchronouse mode' 3,548.1 us 30.80 us 25.72 us 402.3438 289.0625 250.0000 1.5 MB 'FileBufferingWriteStream, asynchronous mode' 4,054.6 us 42.32 us 39.59 us 375.0000 289.0625 242.1875 1.5 MB

FileBufferingWriter is a winner in synchronous scenario because it has native support for synchronous mode in contrast to FileBufferingWriteStream.

Various Buffer Types

This benchmark demonstrates the performance of write operation and memory consumption of the following types:

Method TotalCount Mean Error StdDev Ratio RatioSD Gen0 Gen1 Gen2 Allocated Alloc Ratio MemoryStream 100 67.96 ns 0.603 ns 0.564 ns 1.00 0.00 0.1097 - - 344 B 1.00 SparseBufferWriter 100 249.14 ns 1.903 ns 1.780 ns 3.67 0.04 0.0610 - - 192 B 0.56 PoolingArrayBufferWriter 100 290.32 ns 2.758 ns 2.580 ns 4.27 0.06 0.0787 - - 248 B 0.72 RecyclableMemoryStream 100 1,859.87 ns 17.869 ns 16.715 ns 27.37 0.37 0.0839 - - 264 B 0.77 FileBufferingWriter 100 2,901.26 ns 19.012 ns 15.876 ns 42.64 0.37 0.0801 - - 256 B 0.74 MemoryStream 1000 126.12 ns 1.070 ns 0.949 ns 1.00 0.00 0.3467 - - 1088 B 1.00 SparseBufferWriter 1000 274.55 ns 2.455 ns 2.297 ns 2.18 0.03 0.0610 - - 192 B 0.18 PoolingArrayBufferWriter 1000 523.82 ns 2.064 ns 1.724 ns 4.15 0.03 0.0782 - - 248 B 0.23 RecyclableMemoryStream 1000 1,863.53 ns 11.036 ns 10.323 ns 14.78 0.14 0.0839 - - 264 B 0.24 FileBufferingWriter 1000 2,935.07 ns 14.906 ns 13.943 ns 23.28 0.22 0.0801 - - 256 B 0.24 SparseBufferWriter 10000 780.10 ns 7.312 ns 6.106 ns 0.30 0.00 0.0811 - - 256 B 0.008 PoolingArrayBufferWriter 10000 1,553.56 ns 18.831 ns 17.614 ns 0.60 0.01 0.0782 - - 248 B 0.008 RecyclableMemoryStream 10000 2,330.93 ns 28.111 ns 31.246 ns 0.90 0.02 0.0839 - - 264 B 0.009 MemoryStream 10000 2,587.38 ns 47.665 ns 39.802 ns 1.00 0.00 9.8343 - - 30880 B 1.000 FileBufferingWriter 10000 3,823.11 ns 22.341 ns 19.805 ns 1.48 0.02 0.0763 - - 256 B 0.008 SparseBufferWriter 100000 4,594.99 ns 36.754 ns 28.695 ns 0.05 0.00 0.1373 - - 448 B 0.002 RecyclableMemoryStream 100000 7,296.87 ns 141.390 ns 211.626 ns 0.08 0.00 0.0839 - - 264 B 0.001 PoolingArrayBufferWriter 100000 9,591.01 ns 190.970 ns 187.558 ns 0.11 0.00 0.0763 - - 248 B 0.001 MemoryStream 100000 87,218.01 ns 725.528 ns 678.660 ns 1.00 0.00 41.6260 41.6260 41.6260 260356 B 1.000 FileBufferingWriter 100000 87,383.44 ns 1,727.693 ns 4,172.573 ns 0.98 0.04 0.1221 - - 568 B 0.002 SparseBufferWriter 1000000 50,406.77 ns 994.858 ns 1,916.754 ns 0.04 0.00 0.1831 - - 640 B 0.000 RecyclableMemoryStream 1000000 57,416.33 ns 1,143.944 ns 1,361.784 ns 0.04 0.00 0.2441 - - 896 B 0.000 PoolingArrayBufferWriter 1000000 82,694.54 ns 624.704 ns 833.962 ns 0.06 0.00 - - - 248 B 0.000 FileBufferingWriter 1000000 514,998.40 ns 9,839.591 ns 10,936.679 ns 0.39 0.02 - - - 569 B 0.000 MemoryStream 1000000 1,299,526.59 ns 24,277.962 ns 39,204.383 ns 1.00 0.00 498.0469 498.0469 498.0469 2095745 B 1.000 TypeMap

TypeMap<TValue> and ConcurrentTypeMap<TValue> are specialized dictionaries where the keys are represented by the types passed as generic arguments. The are optimized in a way to be more performant than classic Dictionary<Type,TValue> and ConcurrentDictionary<Type,TValue>. This benchmark demonstrates efficiency of the specialized collections:

Method Mean Error StdDev 'TypeMap, Set + TryGetValue' 3.647 ns 0.0260 ns 0.0243 ns 'Dictionary, Set + TryGetValue' 33.777 ns 0.1140 ns 0.1010 ns 'ConcurrentTypeMap, Set + TryGetValue' 21.542 ns 0.1108 ns 0.0982 ns 'ConcurrentDictionary, Set + TryGetValue' 59.608 ns 0.3600 ns 0.3191 ns 'ConcurrentTypeMap, GetOrAdd' 10.249 ns 0.0435 ns 0.0407 ns 'ConcurrentDictionary, GetOrAdd' 16.019 ns 0.0739 ns 0.0692 ns TaskCompletionPipe

This benchmark demonstrates efficiency of Task Completion Pipe versus async channels from .NET. Pipe sorts the submitted tasks in order of their completion in time. The fastest result is available immediately for the consumer, while the channel needs to wait for completion of the task and only then add it to the queue.

Method Number of input tasks Mean Error StdDev Ratio RatioSD ProduceConsumeCompletionPipe 10 9.420 us 0.0787 us 0.0736 us 0.65 0.02 ProduceConsumeUnboundedChannel 10 14.449 us 0.2887 us 0.3651 us 1.00 0.00 ProduceConsumeCompletionPipe 100 75.802 us 1.4586 us 1.4326 us 0.62 0.01 ProduceConsumeUnboundedChannel 100 123.375 us 0.7581 us 0.6720 us 1.00 0.00 ProduceConsumeCompletionPipe 1000 707.746 us 9.2224 us 8.6266 us 0.66 0.01 ProduceConsumeUnboundedChannel 1000 1,073.418 us 5.2448 us 4.9060 us 1.00 0.00

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4