Repository navigation
vortex-bench: run ClickBench on its first N files - #10936
Performance Gate Passed
2 warnings
⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliableSome benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.
⚠️ 4 benchmarks are dominated by system callsSystem calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.
⚡ 5 improved benchmarks
✅ 2265 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 370 skipped benchmarks1
🗄️ 30 archived benchmarks run2
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ | Walltime | threshold_neon[64] |
3.8 µs | 2.6 µs | +44.65% |
| ⚡ | Walltime | filter_neon[64] |
2.7 µs | 1.9 µs | +41.3% |
| ⚡ | Walltime | threshold_neon[80] |
4.7 µs | 3.4 µs | +36.63% |
| ⚡ | Walltime | filter_neon[80] |
3.4 µs | 2.7 µs | +26.42% |
| ⚡ | CPU Simulation | test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str] |
389.9 µs | 338.3 µs | +15.27% |
Tip
Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing mp/clickbench-files (93d7a0c) with develop (10d2d39)
Footnotes
-
370 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩
-
30 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩