|
|
@@ -200,9 +200,57 @@ The same benchmarks on an old
|
|
|
[Raspberry Pi Model B Rev 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi):
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
-TODO
|
|
|
+$ benchstat bench.txt
|
|
|
+name time/op
|
|
|
+PushFrontQueue 788µs ±24%
|
|
|
+PushFrontList 2.74ms ±14%
|
|
|
+PushBackQueue 1.11ms ± 3%
|
|
|
+PushBackList 2.73ms ±14%
|
|
|
+PushBackChannel 1.25ms ± 3%
|
|
|
+RandomQueue 1.50ms ± 1%
|
|
|
+RandomList 4.92ms ± 6%
|
|
|
+GrowShrinkQueue 1.26ms ± 0%
|
|
|
+GrowShrinkList 2.88ms ± 2%
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+name alloc/op
|
|
|
+PushFrontQueue 16.5kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushFrontList 33.9kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushBackQueue 16.5kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushBackList 33.9kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushBackChannel 8.45kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+RandomQueue 16.5kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+RandomList 53.4kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+GrowShrinkQueue 24.6kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+GrowShrinkList 33.9kB ± 0%
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+name allocs/op
|
|
|
+PushFrontQueue 12.0 ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushFrontList 1.03k ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushBackQueue 12.0 ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushBackList 1.03k ± 0%
|
|
|
+PushBackChannel 1.00 ± 0%
|
|
|
+RandomQueue 12.0 ± 0%
|
|
|
+RandomList 1.63k ± 0%
|
|
|
+GrowShrinkQueue 20.0 ± 0%
|
|
|
+GrowShrinkList 1.03k ± 0%
|
|
|
+$ go version
|
|
|
+go version go1.3.3 linux/arm
|
|
|
+$ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep "model name"
|
|
|
+model name : ARMv6-compatible processor rev 7 (v6l)
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
+That's a [speedup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedup) of
|
|
|
+**2.46-3.48**
|
|
|
+over [container/list](https://golang.org/pkg/container/list/)
|
|
|
+but only a speedup of
|
|
|
+1.13
|
|
|
+over Go's channels.
|
|
|
+(Note that I had to manually repeat the benchmarks and then run `benchtest`
|
|
|
+elsewhere since those features/tools are not available for Go 1.3;
|
|
|
+however, the number of allocations seems to be correct here for the first
|
|
|
+time, maybe there's some breakage in the more recent benchmarking
|
|
|
+framework?)
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
### Go's channels as queues
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go's channels *used* to beat our queue implementation by about 22%
|
Peter H. Froehlich