4 ms·

Results on mine: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostn

Results on mine: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,443 ops/sec ±3.46% (54 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,093 ops/sec ±1.18% (25 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,993 ops/sec ±1.92% (59 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,923 ops/sec ±2.81% (44 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 10,100 ops/sec ±1.75% (54 runs sampled) Done.

pietroglyph 8y ago
Interestingly, my numbers are completely different relative to each other when compared with yours... I wonder how the number of runs is determined and if this affects the results. Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Fedora 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,707 ops/sec ±1.93% (60 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,078 ops/sec ±0.88% (25 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 10,038 ops/sec ±1.41% (64 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,258 ops/sec ±1.03% (40 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 8,033 ops/sec ±1.08% (44 runs sampled) Done.
- DiabloD3 8y ago
  Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 65.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,647 ops/sec ±2.23% (13 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 1,178 ops/sec ±4.95% (48 runs sampled) - Set-based x 1,854 ops/sec ±1.94% (59 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 275 ops/sec ±4.61% (56 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 2,947 ops/sec ±2.32% (61 runs sampled) - Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 671 ops/sec ±2.60% (47 runs sampled) Done. - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 9,311 ops/sec ±1.61% (51 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,121 ops/sec ±1.28% (40 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 7,983 ops/sec ±2.44% (63 runs sampled) Done. And mine seems to look different than yours, but similarly lopsided.
- Nullabillity 8y ago
  That's what I got too: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Linux 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,992 ops/sec ±0.71% (15 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 5,148 ops/sec ±0.18% (30 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 11,797 ops/sec ±0.49% (63 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 8,471 ops/sec ±0.50% (47 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 9,543 ops/sec ±0.48% (52 runs sampled) Done. I don't see why trie matching performance would depend on the host OS... Unless WASM runs out of process and requires some form of IPC, I guess?
  - wcdolphin 8y ago
    Interesting that an iPhone XS is the fastest of all the benchmarks above. Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Safari 12.0 on Apple iPhone (iOS 12.1). Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 3,763 ops/sec ±0.19% (68 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 392 ops/sec ±0.16% (66 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 20,669 ops/sec ±0.15% (69 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 16,926 ops/sec ±0.71% (69 runs sampled) Done.
    - X-Istence 8y ago
      Safari is also a lot faster than Firefox/Chrome on the Trie-based versions (non-wasm)
- jannes 8y ago
  I got these results on an i7 8700K (not overclocked): Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,917 ops/sec ±1.21% (14 runs sampled) - Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 829 ops/sec ±0.64% (66 runs sampled) Done. - Regex-based x 4,475 ops/sec ±0.37% (27 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,624 ops/sec ±0.29% (48 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 8,848 ops/sec ±0.43% (49 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 10,441 ops/sec ±0.30% (57 runs sampled) Done. Interestingly, my CPU only boosts to 4.3 GHz during this benchmark and CPU utilisation of the Firefox process only goes up to 8%.
- gorhill 8y ago
  For some reasons, I found that Firefox's results for WASM are always better after a first run -- i.e. clicking "Lookup" again without reloading the page. I don't know what is the explanation of this.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    Firefox can cache the compiled WASM. So perhaps your benchmarks include compilation warm-up on the first run.
X-Istence 8y ago
Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Safari 12.0.1 on OS X 10.14.1. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 3,801 ops/sec ±1.01% (62 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 370 ops/sec ±0.68% (60 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 15,679 ops/sec ±0.73% (63 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 16,408 ops/sec ±2.50% (62 runs sampled) Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on OS X 10.14. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,703 ops/sec ±3.46% (57 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,210 ops/sec ±1.95% (26 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 9,961 ops/sec ±0.74% (65 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,120 ops/sec ±0.61% (40 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 7,993 ops/sec ±0.81% (44 runs sampled) Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Chrome 70.0.3538.110 on OS X 10.14.1 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 3,414 ops/sec ±5.66% (53 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,667 ops/sec ±2.50% (28 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 10,665 ops/sec ±1.31% (56 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,852 ops/sec ±1.66% (43 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 11,930 ops/sec ±2.49% (58 runs sampled) MacOS 10.14.1 Hardware: MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2017) Processor: 2.9 GHz Intel Core i7 Memory: 16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3 Graphics: Radeon Pro 560 4096 MB Intel HD Graphics 630 1536 MB
xhruso00 8y ago
Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Safari 11.1.2 on OS X 10.12.6. Create dictionaries -Set-based x 1,393 ops/sec ±0.85% (60 runs sampled) -Regex-based x 1,798 ops/sec ±0.75% (61 runs sampled) -Trie-based (1st-gen) x 419 ops/sec ±1.35% (61 runs sampled) -Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 986 ops/sec ±0.77% (63 runs sampled) Done.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

pietroglyph 8y ago

Interestingly, my numbers are completely different relative to each other when compared with yours... I wonder how the number of runs is determined and if this affects the results. Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Fedora 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,707 ops/sec ±1.93% (60 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,078 ops/sec ±0.88% (25 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 10,038 ops/sec ±1.41% (64 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,258 ops/sec ±1.03% (40 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 8,033 ops/sec ±1.08% (44 runs sampled) Done.

DiabloD3 8y ago
Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 65.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,647 ops/sec ±2.23% (13 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 1,178 ops/sec ±4.95% (48 runs sampled) - Set-based x 1,854 ops/sec ±1.94% (59 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 275 ops/sec ±4.61% (56 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 2,947 ops/sec ±2.32% (61 runs sampled) - Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 671 ops/sec ±2.60% (47 runs sampled) Done. - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 9,311 ops/sec ±1.61% (51 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,121 ops/sec ±1.28% (40 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 7,983 ops/sec ±2.44% (63 runs sampled) Done. And mine seems to look different than yours, but similarly lopsided.
Nullabillity 8y ago
That's what I got too: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Linux 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,992 ops/sec ±0.71% (15 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 5,148 ops/sec ±0.18% (30 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 11,797 ops/sec ±0.49% (63 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 8,471 ops/sec ±0.50% (47 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 9,543 ops/sec ±0.48% (52 runs sampled) Done. I don't see why trie matching performance would depend on the host OS... Unless WASM runs out of process and requires some form of IPC, I guess?
- wcdolphin 8y ago
  Interesting that an iPhone XS is the fastest of all the benchmarks above. Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Safari 12.0 on Apple iPhone (iOS 12.1). Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 3,763 ops/sec ±0.19% (68 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 392 ops/sec ±0.16% (66 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 20,669 ops/sec ±0.15% (69 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 16,926 ops/sec ±0.71% (69 runs sampled) Done.
  - X-Istence 8y ago
    Safari is also a lot faster than Firefox/Chrome on the Trie-based versions (non-wasm)
jannes 8y ago
I got these results on an i7 8700K (not overclocked): Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,917 ops/sec ±1.21% (14 runs sampled) - Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 829 ops/sec ±0.64% (66 runs sampled) Done. - Regex-based x 4,475 ops/sec ±0.37% (27 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,624 ops/sec ±0.29% (48 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 8,848 ops/sec ±0.43% (49 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 10,441 ops/sec ±0.30% (57 runs sampled) Done. Interestingly, my CPU only boosts to 4.3 GHz during this benchmark and CPU utilisation of the Firefox process only goes up to 8%.
gorhill 8y ago
For some reasons, I found that Firefox's results for WASM are always better after a first run -- i.e. clicking "Lookup" again without reloading the page. I don't know what is the explanation of this.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  Firefox can cache the compiled WASM. So perhaps your benchmarks include compilation warm-up on the first run.

X-Istence 8y ago

Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Safari 12.0.1 on OS X 10.14.1. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 3,801 ops/sec ±1.01% (62 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 370 ops/sec ±0.68% (60 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 15,679 ops/sec ±0.73% (63 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 16,408 ops/sec ±2.50% (62 runs sampled) Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on OS X 10.14. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,703 ops/sec ±3.46% (57 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,210 ops/sec ±1.95% (26 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 9,961 ops/sec ±0.74% (65 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,120 ops/sec ±0.61% (40 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 7,993 ops/sec ±0.81% (44 runs sampled) Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Chrome 70.0.3538.110 on OS X 10.14.1 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 3,414 ops/sec ±5.66% (53 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,667 ops/sec ±2.50% (28 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 10,665 ops/sec ±1.31% (56 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,852 ops/sec ±1.66% (43 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 11,930 ops/sec ±2.49% (58 runs sampled) MacOS 10.14.1 Hardware: MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2017) Processor: 2.9 GHz Intel Core i7 Memory: 16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3 Graphics: Radeon Pro 560 4096 MB Intel HD Graphics 630 1536 MB

xhruso00 8y ago

Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Safari 11.1.2 on OS X 10.12.6. Create dictionaries -Set-based x 1,393 ops/sec ±0.85% (60 runs sampled) -Regex-based x 1,798 ops/sec ±0.75% (61 runs sampled) -Trie-based (1st-gen) x 419 ops/sec ±1.35% (61 runs sampled) -Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 986 ops/sec ±0.77% (63 runs sampled) Done.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]