-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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
Add from_iterator/try_from_iterator for the filters. #60
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, the perf delta is very interesting. I haven't tried this locally but I'll run benchmarks on my machine soon. May be worth checking the perf graph.
Thanks for the PR!
d639501
to
756d7b4
Compare
756d7b4
to
980021a
Compare
Sorry for the late reply. Didn't notice this until recently & freed up some time. Review comments addressed. |
980021a
to
b023aef
Compare
Thanks @vlovich! Looks like there are a few lint warnings to fix. |
b023aef
to
1aa6716
Compare
Add a helper to construct using an iterator. BinaryFuse16/from/500000 time: [19.930 ms 19.993 ms 20.060 ms] change: [-17.320% -8.1279% +1.8364%] (p = 0.17 > 0.05) No change in performance detected. BinaryFuse32/from/500000 time: [19.161 ms 19.305 ms 19.526 ms] change: [-33.901% -21.972% -9.3098%] (p = 0.01 < 0.05) Performance has improved. BinaryFuse8/from/500000 time: [18.473 ms 18.537 ms 18.670 ms] change: [-36.472% -26.878% -17.103%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05) Performance has improved. Fuse16/from/500000 time: [29.237 ms 29.529 ms 30.126 ms] change: [-53.901% -34.098% -9.1085%] (p = 0.07 > 0.05) No change in performance detected. Fuse32/from/500000 time: [30.281 ms 30.392 ms 30.601 ms] change: [-35.093% -20.946% -6.5932%] (p = 0.03 < 0.05) Performance has improved. Fuse8/from/500000 time: [29.309 ms 37.546 ms 45.843 ms] change: [-56.022% -43.412% -23.294%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05) Performance has improved. Xor16/from/500000 time: [42.116 ms 44.413 ms 46.674 ms] change: [-44.116% -32.964% -18.902%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05) Performance has improved. Xor32/from/500000 time: [42.222 ms 42.648 ms 43.433 ms] change: [-6.5170% +0.2829% +7.5735%] (p = 0.95 > 0.05) No change in performance detected. Xor8/from/500000 time: [40.687 ms 41.027 ms 41.439 ms] change: [-43.893% -32.745% -17.619%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05) Performance has improved.
1aa6716
to
1494b6a
Compare
Fixed I think. |
ping @ayazhafiz |
Sorry for the delay @vlovich . This looks good, I am merging and will release a patch with some of the latest changes shortly. |
@vlovich , this is available in https://github.com/ayazhafiz/xorf/releases/tag/0.9.0. Thank you so much! |
Add a helper to construct using an iterator. I'm not convinced these benchmark results aren't indicative of some kind
of machine setup issue on my end. Can't imagine why there'd be an across-the-board perf improvement like that and
on the previous run I did (before I added the new benchmarks) I saw a mix of improvements and regressions.
Resolves #59