Closed bdraco closed 1 month ago
Comparing cache_miss
(63af59c) with master
(b7be10f)
๐ 4
new benchmarks
โ๏ธ 2 (๐ 2)
dropped benchmarks
Benchmark | master |
cache_miss |
Change | |
---|---|---|---|---|
๐ | test_cached_property_cache_hit |
N/A | 39.4 ยตs | N/A |
๐ | test_cached_property_cache_miss |
N/A | 115.8 ยตs | N/A |
๐ | test_cached_property_caching |
39.2 ยตs | N/A | N/A |
๐ | test_under_cached_property_cache_hit |
N/A | 57.7 ยตs | N/A |
๐ | test_under_cached_property_cache_miss |
N/A | 111 ยตs | N/A |
๐ | test_under_cached_property_caching |
57.5 ยตs | N/A | N/A |
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (
b7be10f
) to head (63af59c
). Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
I realized we should have benchmarks for cache miss as well
Sadly we have to pop out the key every time so that gets included in the benchmark but thats ok as long as we think about that when looking at the data