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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Add benchmark for loading chunks and chunk descs. #604

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2015
Merged

Add benchmark for loading chunks and chunk descs. #604

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Binary file added storage/local/fixtures/b0/04b821ca50ba26.db
View file
Open in desktop
Binary file not shown.
Binary file added storage/local/fixtures/b0/37c21e884e4fc5.db
View file
Open in desktop
Binary file not shown.
Binary file added storage/local/fixtures/b0/37de1e884e5469.db
View file
Open in desktop
Binary file not shown.
71 changes: 71 additions & 0 deletions storage/local/persistence_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -884,3 +884,74 @@ func verifyIndexedState(i int, t *testing.T, b incrementalBatch, indexedFpsToMet
}
}
}

var fpStrings = []string{
"b004b821ca50ba26",
"b037c21e884e4fc5",
"b037de1e884e5469",
}

func BenchmarkLoadChunksSequentially(b *testing.B) {
p := persistence{
basePath: "fixtures",
}
sequentialIndexes := make([]int, 47)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

May I ask: why exactly 47?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, because that's in the fixture, I guess...

for i := range sequentialIndexes {
sequentialIndexes[i] = i
}

var fp clientmodel.Fingerprint
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
for _, s := range fpStrings {
fp.LoadFromString(s)
cds, err := p.loadChunks(fp, sequentialIndexes, 0)
if err != nil {
b.Error(err)
}
if len(cds) == 0 {
b.Error("could not read any chunks")
}
}
}
}

func BenchmarkLoadChunksRandomly(b *testing.B) {
p := persistence{
basePath: "fixtures",
}
randomIndexes := []int{1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, 23, 29, 33, 42, 46}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would one not want to load all 47 chunks here too (randomly), unless you don't care about comparing it to the benchmark above?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Random order is not a realistic scenario. AFAIK, the load is either completely sequential as above, or it has "gaps", which I try to simulate here.

No comparison of the two benchmarks intended. This is all only to play with the load methods later.


var fp clientmodel.Fingerprint
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
for _, s := range fpStrings {
fp.LoadFromString(s)
cds, err := p.loadChunks(fp, randomIndexes, 0)
if err != nil {
b.Error(err)
}
if len(cds) == 0 {
b.Error("could not read any chunks")
}
}
}
}

func BenchmarkLoadChunkDescs(b *testing.B) {
p := persistence{
basePath: "fixtures",
}

var fp clientmodel.Fingerprint
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
for _, s := range fpStrings {
fp.LoadFromString(s)
cds, err := p.loadChunkDescs(fp, clientmodel.Latest)
if err != nil {
b.Error(err)
}
if len(cds) == 0 {
b.Error("could not read any chunk descs")
}
}
}
}