chore: remove cross-implementation benchmarks and rewrite README - #25
Performance Gate Passed
⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected
Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.
For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.
⚠️ Different runtime environments detected
Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.
⚡ 8 improved benchmarks
✅ 24 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 2 skipped benchmarks1
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[12] |
749 µs | 465.4 µs | +60.93% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[16] |
764 µs | 501.6 µs | +52.31% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[("p_name", 12)] |
1,137.5 µs | 769.9 µs | +47.75% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[("l_comment", 12)] |
16.9 ms | 11.7 ms | +44.29% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[("o_comment", 12)] |
15.1 ms | 10.7 ms | +41.71% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[("p_name", 16)] |
936.5 µs | 697.3 µs | +34.3% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[("o_comment", 16)] |
14.9 ms | 12.4 ms | +20.04% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | decompress_all[("l_comment", 16)] |
15.8 ms | 13.6 ms | +16.24% |
Tip
Curious why this is faster? Comment @codspeedbot explain why this is faster on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing chore/repo-maintenance (e4a24c4) with develop (5534b59)
Footnotes
-
2 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩