benchmarking

问题 I would like to benchmark single TypoScript object generation to control the performance, is it possible, probably, with some stdWrap methods ? Example of TS objects, which I would like to benchmark : Test 1 page.10 = RECORDS page.10 { tables = pages source = 1 dontCheckPid = 1 conf.pages = TEXT conf.pages.field = title } Test 2 page.20 = CONTENT page.20 { table = tt_content select { pidInList = 0 recursive = 99 where = uid = 1 } } I need each object generation time and quantity of fired

问题 I have a Python project with a bunch of tests that have already been implemented, and I'd like to begin benchmarking them so I can compare performance of the code, servers, etc over time. Locating the files in a manner similar to Nose was no problem because I have "test" in the names of all my test files anyway. However, I'm running into some trouble in attempting to dynamically execute these tests. As of right now, I'm able to run a script that takes a directory path as an argument and

问题 What resources are available that use benchmarks for comparing programming languages? I am interested in both How quickly a program in a given language can execute a given benchmark? How many lines of code are required in a given language to implement a given benchmark? There is a long-standing web site called the Computer Language Benchmarks Game, originally created by Doug Bagley as the "Great Computer Language Shootout". (You can view a little history at Portland Patterns Repository.) Is

问题 Given that the Stopwatch class in C# can use something like three different timers underneath e.g. System timer e.g. precision of approx +-10 ms depending on timer resolution that can be set with timeBeginPeriod it can be approx +-1 ms . Time Stamp Counter (TSC) e.g. with a tick frequency of 2.5MHz or 1 tick = 400 ns so ideally a precision of that. High Precision Event Timer (HPET) e.g. with a tick frequency of 25MHz or 1 tick = 40 ns so ideally a precision of that. how can we measure the

问题 Recently, I was intrigued by the Julia-lang as it claims to be a dynamic language that has near C performance. However, my experience with it so far is not good (at least performance wise). The application that I'm writing requires random-access to specific array indices and then comparing their values with other specific array indices (over many iterations). The following code simulates my needs from the program: My Julia code finishes executing in around 8seconds while the java-script code

问题 I have to run a Web server with many services on an embedded server with limited RAM (1 GB, no swap). There will be a maximum of 100 users. I will have services such as a forum, little games (javascript or flash), etc. My team knows Ruby on Rails very well, but I am a bit worried about Rails' memory usage. I really do not want to start a troll here, but I am wondering if there are any serious (i.e. documented) benchmarks comparing Rails, Django, CakePHP or any other PHP framework? Could you

问题 One very attractive feature of ES6 is its built in template strings. At this point in time, since transpiling to ES5 is a must for cross browser compatibility, I am curious what the performance differences are between transpiled ES6 templates and existing solutions such as Mustache, Handlebars, Jade etc. Obviously if you need advanced features from a templating language, ES6 templates may not fulfill all of your needs, but if you are performing basic templating, is it fair to say that ES6

问题 EDIT @Remus corrected my test pattern. You can see the corrected version on his answer below. I took the suggestion of replacing the INT with DECIMAL(29,0) and the results were: Decimal: 2133 GUID: 1836 Random inserts are still winning, even with a fractionally bigger row. Despite explanations that indicate random inserts are slower than sequential ones, these benchmarks show they are apparently faster. The explanations I'm getting aren't agreeing with the benchmarks. Therefore, my question

问题 EDIT @Remus corrected my test pattern. You can see the corrected version on his answer below. I took the suggestion of replacing the INT with DECIMAL(29,0) and the results were: Decimal: 2133 GUID: 1836 Random inserts are still winning, even with a fractionally bigger row. Despite explanations that indicate random inserts are slower than sequential ones, these benchmarks show they are apparently faster. The explanations I'm getting aren't agreeing with the benchmarks. Therefore, my question

问题 I'm trying to time how long clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME,...) takes to call. "Back in the day" I used to call it once at the top of a loop since it was a fairly expensive call. But now, I was hoping that with vDSO and some clock improvements, it might not be so slow. I wrote some test code that used __rdtscp to time repeated calls to clock_gettime (the rdtscp calls went around a loop that called clock_gettime and added the results together, just so the compiler wouldn't optimize too much away