-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
Add benchmark for valideer #670
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
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #670 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 100% 100%
=====================================
Files 19 19
Lines 3237 3237
Branches 642 642
=====================================
Hits 3237 3237Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Thanks so much for this, sorry I haven't dealt with it. I'm going to defer further changes to benchmarks until after v1 (see #576), but after that I promise to deal with this. Sorry again for the delay. |
|
Sure no rush, thanks for the update. |
|
I've merged master, and updated benchmarks. I'll merge this once tests pass. valideer is still the fasted other than pydantic :-) |
|
Great, thank you! |
* Add benchmark for valideer * valideer version and update benchmarks * add change * correct benchmarks
Added a new benchmark for Valideer, yet another validation library (Disclaimer: I am the main author).
Despite the fact that high performance was not among valideer's goals and that it is a pure python package written ~7 years ago, it appears to be as fast as pydantic when the latter is compiled with Cython and 1.6x faster when not. Here are some benchmark results on python 3.6.7:
Package versions: