I'm not sure what point you're making with these numbers. They're effectively identical; the GC numbers in particular show no appreciable allocation or collection in either benchmark.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:05 AM Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > I clearly cannot agree with your conclusion based on the numbers I am > seeing locally. > > --- > Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error > Units > Testing6.index sample 5041408 51.985 ± 0.244 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.00 sample 31.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.50 sample 49.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.90 sample 52.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.95 sample 62.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.99 sample 70.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.999 sample 149.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p0.9999 sample 3174.873 > ns/op > Testing6.index:index·p1.00 sample 46144.000 > ns/op > Testing6.index:·gc.alloc.rate sample 5 0.007 ± 0.003 > MB/sec > Testing6.index:·gc.alloc.rate.norm sample 5 ≈ 10⁻⁴ > B/op > Testing6.index:·gc.count sample 5 ≈ 0 > counts > Testing6.iterator sample 4310920 50.587 ± 0.233 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.00 sample 32.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.50 sample 48.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.90 sample 54.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.95 sample 56.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.99 sample 62.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.999 sample 115.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p0.9999 sample 1974.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:iterator·p1.00 sample 80896.000 > ns/op > Testing6.iterator:·gc.alloc.rate sample 5 0.007 ± 0.002 > MB/sec > Testing6.iterator:·gc.alloc.rate.norm sample 5 ≈ 10⁻⁴ > B/op > Testing6.iterator:·gc.count sample 5 ≈ 0 > counts --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
