6 ms·

If I understand it correctly, Gob encoding is slower in 1.1?

by songgao 13y ago

enneff 13y ago
Correct. It's a regression in that benchmark, but it's possible that improvements elsewhere will still make your program faster overall. For instance, gob is mostly used in network servers, and the scheduler improvements may be good enough to overshadow the gob regression. We're always looking for more real-world performance measurements. If you have any programs whose performance has regressed between 1.0 and 1.1, we'd like to hear about it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jgrahamc 13y ago
  CloudFlare uses gob a lot in a latency sensitive way and so I figured I would run my own test with a small program like this. The 'Thing' structure is meant to mirror the sort of items we send using gob. package main import ( "bytes" "encoding/gob" "fmt" "time" ) type Thing struct { B []byte S string I int } func main() { var n bytes.Buffer e := gob.NewEncoder(&n) t := Thing{[]byte(p), p, 42} count := 10000000 mark := time.Now() for i := 0; i < count; i++ { if err := e.Encode(t); err != nil { panic(err) } n.Truncate(0) t.I += 1 } fmt.Printf("%f\n", time.Since(mark).Seconds()) } var p = `` // Cut for space but is a 15,344 byte web page as a string I had two versions of Go on my machine: 16c93a202587 (http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=16c93a202587f49957d3fad528cf6f4738c55909 http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=16c93a202587f499... from March 1) and 9d60132d7784 (https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=9d60132d7784 https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=9d60132d7784 from yesterday). Doing 10 runs of each and averaging the reported duration I see: 16c93a202587: 29.4829122s 9d60132d7784: 26.4422463s So, in my test Go 1.1 (represented by 9d60132d7784) is 10% faster than a previous version from March. Tests were done on a AMD64 Linux.
  - paulsmith 13y ago
    How do you install multiple versions of Go on a single machine?
    - JulienSchmidt 13y ago
      Just install them in different paths. You have three options then: 1. Use absolute paths for the Go tools: $ /home/paul/go-tip/bin/go run myfile.go 2. Set the GOPATH every time accordingly (script) 3. Rename the folder. For example on my Windows PC I have GOPATH pointed to D:/dev/go. In the dev folder I have Go installations in go/ (currently 1.1), go1.0.3 (guess the version) and go-tip. If I want to use another version I just rename the folder to go/
  - jemfinch 13y ago
    > Doing 10 runs of each and averaging the reported duration I wish people would stop doing that. Your program is doing the same work in all benchmarking runs; any variance in the runtime is a result of factors you're probably not interested in measuring, like kernel scheduling nuances or what CPUs your benchmark happened to run on. You should take the min of microbenchmark duration, not the average.
pkulak 13y ago
Looking for Arrested Development joke...

If I understand it correctly, Gob encoding is slower in 1.1?

by songgao 13y ago

If I understand it correctly, Gob encoding is slower in 1.1?

Correct. It's a regression in that benchmark, but it's possible that improvements elsewhere will still make your program faster overall. For instance, gob is mostly used in network servers, and the scheduler improvements may be good enough to overshadow the gob regression. We're always looking for more real-world performance measurements. If you have any programs whose performance has regressed between 1.0 and 1.1, we'd like to hear about it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jgrahamc 13y ago
CloudFlare uses gob a lot in a latency sensitive way and so I figured I would run my own test with a small program like this. The 'Thing' structure is meant to mirror the sort of items we send using gob. package main import ( "bytes" "encoding/gob" "fmt" "time" ) type Thing struct { B []byte S string I int } func main() { var n bytes.Buffer e := gob.NewEncoder(&n) t := Thing{[]byte(p), p, 42} count := 10000000 mark := time.Now() for i := 0; i < count; i++ { if err := e.Encode(t); err != nil { panic(err) } n.Truncate(0) t.I += 1 } fmt.Printf("%f\n", time.Since(mark).Seconds()) } var p = `` // Cut for space but is a 15,344 byte web page as a string I had two versions of Go on my machine: 16c93a202587 (http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=16c93a202587f49957d3fad528cf6f4738c55909 http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=16c93a202587f499... from March 1) and 9d60132d7784 (https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=9d60132d7784 https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=9d60132d7784 from yesterday). Doing 10 runs of each and averaging the reported duration I see: 16c93a202587: 29.4829122s 9d60132d7784: 26.4422463s So, in my test Go 1.1 (represented by 9d60132d7784) is 10% faster than a previous version from March. Tests were done on a AMD64 Linux.
- paulsmith 13y ago
  How do you install multiple versions of Go on a single machine?
  - JulienSchmidt 13y ago
    Just install them in different paths. You have three options then: 1. Use absolute paths for the Go tools: $ /home/paul/go-tip/bin/go run myfile.go 2. Set the GOPATH every time accordingly (script) 3. Rename the folder. For example on my Windows PC I have GOPATH pointed to D:/dev/go. In the dev folder I have Go installations in go/ (currently 1.1), go1.0.3 (guess the version) and go-tip. If I want to use another version I just rename the folder to go/
- jemfinch 13y ago
  > Doing 10 runs of each and averaging the reported duration I wish people would stop doing that. Your program is doing the same work in all benchmarking runs; any variance in the runtime is a result of factors you're probably not interested in measuring, like kernel scheduling nuances or what CPUs your benchmark happened to run on. You should take the min of microbenchmark duration, not the average.

pkulak 13y ago

Looking for Arrested Development joke...