[ISSUE #78]✨Add benchmarks for CheetahString performance across creation, cloning, querying, transforming, concatenating, iterating, and size scaling #79
Conversation
…ion, cloning, querying, transforming, concatenating, iterating, and size scaling
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughIntroduces a comprehensive Criterion-based benchmark file comparing CheetahString performance against standard String and Arc across multiple operations including creation, cloning, querying (starts_with, ends_with, contains, find), transformation (to_uppercase, replace, substring), concatenation, iteration (chars, split), and size scaling scenarios. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR adds comprehensive performance benchmarks for CheetahString, comparing it against standard String and Arc implementations across various operations and string sizes.
- Adds 7 benchmark suites covering creation, cloning, querying, transforming, concatenating, iterating, and size scaling operations
- Benchmarks SSO (Small String Optimization) behavior at the 23-byte boundary
- Compares CheetahString performance against String and Arc for equivalent operations
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
benches/comprehensive.rs (2)
34-52: Consider adding Arc<String> benchmarks for consistency.The creation benchmarks include Arc for empty and short strings but omit it for the 23-byte and long cases. While not critical, completing this coverage would provide more consistent comparison data across all size categories.
Suggested additions for Arc<String> benchmarks
After line 42, add:
+ group.bench_function("Arc<String>::from(23B)", |b| { + b.iter(|| black_box(Arc::new(String::from(medium)))) + });After line 52, add:
+ group.bench_function("Arc<String>::from(long)", |b| { + b.iter(|| black_box(Arc::new(String::from(long)))) + });
274-306: Consider more granular testing around the SSO boundary.The size scaling benchmarks include 23 bytes (the SSO boundary), but testing sizes immediately around this boundary (e.g., 22, 23, 24) would provide more detailed insight into the performance characteristics at the SSO threshold. This would help identify any performance cliffs at this critical boundary.
Suggested size array with finer SSO boundary coverage
- for size in [10, 23, 50, 100, 500, 1000].iter() { + for size in [10, 22, 23, 24, 50, 100, 500, 1000].iter() {
📜 Review details
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
benches/comprehensive.rs
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code graph analysis (1)
benches/comprehensive.rs (2)
src/serde.rs (1)
cheetah_string(26-88)src/cheetah_string.rs (1)
new(257-259)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
benches/comprehensive.rs (6)
1-3: Excellent benchmark structure and comprehensive coverage!The benchmark suite thoroughly covers all operations mentioned in issue #78: creation, cloning, querying, transforming, concatenating, iterating, and size scaling. The organization into separate benchmark groups is clear and maintainable.
Also applies to: 308-318
57-114: Clone benchmarks are well-structured!The clone benchmarks provide consistent coverage across all three types (CheetahString, String, Arc) and size categories (empty, short, 1KB). This will effectively demonstrate CheetahString's cloning behavior compared to standard approaches.
116-154: Query benchmarks provide good coverage.The query operations (starts_with, ends_with, contains, find) are appropriately benchmarked against String. These read-only operations will highlight any performance differences in CheetahString's internal representation.
196-230: Concatenation benchmarks measure clone+concat overhead.The benchmarks use
clone()inside the iteration (lines 206, 210, 214, 222, 226), which means they're measuring the combined cost of cloning and concatenating, not just concatenation alone. This is likely necessary to avoid moving the strings on first use, but it's worth confirming this measurement approach aligns with your benchmarking goals.If you want to measure concatenation alone, you could create fresh strings in the setup closure instead, though that would add different overhead.
232-272: Iteration benchmarks are well-implemented!The use of
black_boxon individual elements during iteration prevents compiler optimizations from skewing the results. This will accurately measure the iteration performance of CheetahString compared to String.
156-194: CheetahString API verified.All methods used in the benchmarks are properly implemented in CheetahString with compatible signatures:
to_uppercase(),replace(), andsubstring()all return CheetahString and match the usage patterns shown. The substring method correctly demonstrates a CheetahString-specific capability.
fix #78
Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.