You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The arr.json is 100k lines such as the one in noshare array. The reason why the one array is much smaller is that otherwise, it will use too much memory :D
Both were run with --compatibility-mode=base -u 1000 -d 30s --no-teardown --no-setup
The results averaged over 3 runs are :
no-share: 146%CPU (Really stable somehow) 1055-1064M (again really stable) 1937-1947/s iterations
share: 163-168% CPU and 1162-1222M memory usage 1899-1946/s iterations
I ran it once for 5minutes ... because I have to do other stuff:
no-share:143% CPU, 1346M 1982.689996/s iterations
share: 166% CPU, 1455M 1985.615058/s iterations
The
arr.json
is 100k lines such as the one in noshare array. The reason why the one array is much smaller is that otherwise, it will use too much memory :DBoth were run with
--compatibility-mode=base -u 1000 -d 30s --no-teardown --no-setup
The results averaged over 3 runs are :
no-share: 146%CPU (Really stable somehow) 1055-1064M (again really stable) 1937-1947/s iterations
share: 163-168% CPU and 1162-1222M memory usage 1899-1946/s iterations
I ran it once for 5minutes ... because I have to do other stuff:
no-share:143% CPU, 1346M 1982.689996/s iterations
share: 166% CPU, 1455M 1985.615058/s iterations