perf: benchmarking larger chunks + non-repeated values#205
Merged
Conversation
d-v-b
approved these changes
Jun 24, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR benchmarks more than just repeated values which compress comically well, which makes the benchmark somewhat unrealistic, coupled with the fact that the chunks uncompressed were smaller than I think most people use.
Here's the full results table on my Linux virtual machine from DENBI:
Details
I will do a full write-up with some graphs (thanks claude) tomorrow but I think the most realistic use-cases from this table are:
i.e., local file system, 100 chunks in a shard, 100 shards, data that compresses moderately well (I think it was 2X) and
the same, with latency attached.
For the local version, everything makes sense - more threads is faster than both 1 thread and batched i.e., current
mainpipeline.With latency, the reading isn't faster with threads than without, but the writing is much faster. I have a suspicion this is due to the
MemoryStoreas a backing choice but have no hard evidence for that.TODO:
docs/user-guide/*.mdchanges/