timesup 0.0.0

No project description provided

timesup

🚧 There's no source code available yet. Stay tuned.

Library that handles all boilerplate when it comes to measuring performance and showcasing the difference between results.

Why?

I was tired of writing benchmarks that not only measured performance, but also output it in an accessible and intuitive way (like this one), but also easy to reproduce. So I decided to abstract all that away so the only thing left is to write the actual code you want to measure.

I believe that by making benchmarking more accessible (and fun), I can create incentive to build faster software.

Features

• Output is a Python code that contains the benchmark itself and ready to be published
• Effortless comparisons of results
• Compare current implementation to one in any given git revision
• Compare interpreted CPython code to compiled code it produces via cython or mypyc
• Profiling support for expressions
• HTML output for viewing individual profiling results by expanding expressions
• Automatically selects the appropriate number of runs and repeats, if they weren't provided
• Out-of-the-box support for multiline expressions

Showcase

All snippets are self-contained

Comparing within the same process

cat benchmark.py

import copy
import duper
import timesup

@timesup.it(number=100000, repeats=3)
def duper_vs_deepcopy():
    x = {"a": 1, "b": [(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6)], "c": []}  # i
    copy.deepcopy(x)  # t deepcopy
    dup = duper.Duper(x)  # t duper_init deepcopy
    dup.deep()  # t duper deepcopy

python benchmark.py

import copy
import duper
import timesup

@timesup.it(number=100000, repeats=3)
def reconstruction():
    x = {"a": 1, "b": [(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6)], "c": []} 
    copy.deepcopy(x)        # ~0.00643 ms (deepcopy)
    dup = duper.Duper(x)    # ~0.00009 ms (duper_init): 69.44 times faster than deepcopy
    dup.deep()              # ~0.00014 ms (duper): 44.76 times faster than deepcopy

Interpreted vs compiled code

cat fib.py

def fib(n: int) -> int:
    if n <= 1:
        return n
    else:
        return fib(n - 2) + fib(n - 1)

mypyc fib.py

building 'compiled_test' extension
...
copying build/lib.macosx-12.0-arm64-cpython-310/fib.cpython-310-darwin.so -> 

cat benchmark.py

import timesup
from fib import fib

@timesup.compare(to_interpreted=True)
def cpython_vs_mypyc():
    fib(32)

python benchmark.py

import timesup
from fib import fib

@timesup.compare(to_interpreted=True)
def cpython_vs_mypyc():
    fib(32)     # ~510.73292 ms (interpreted)
    #|_________ # ~21.72464 ms (compiled): 23.51 times faster than interpreted

Existing vs new code

Consider you're trying to improve performance of app.used_to_be_slow function.

It's crucial to have a baseline that you can compare your changes to.

By allowing to pass a target revision that changes need to be compared to, timesup:

• removes the need to capture the baseline beforehand
• since baseline is calculated each time automatically, you're not limited to the input you've got your baseline results with
• creates a perfect code snippet to include in PR with the changes ✨
• this snipped can be run by any of reviewers without them needing to manually download any benchmarks, measuring the baseline and testing the results

cat benchmark.py

import timesup
from app import used_to_be_slow

@timesup.compare(to_revision="main")
def measure_improvement():
    used_to_be_slow()

python benchmark.py

import timesup
from app import used_to_be_slow

@timesup.compare(to_revision="main")
def measure_improvement():
    used_to_be_slow()     # ~0.00106 ms (34dc8225)
    #|___________________ # ~0.00035 ms (changes): 2.99 times faster than 34dc8225 

🚧 Status

If you have any feedback, you can open the issue, or contact me directly via [e-mail] or Telegram.