radius-spec 0.5.0 → 0.9.0

data/benchmarks/hash_each.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
+# frozen_string_literal: true
+
+# Run from the command line: bundle exec ruby benchmarks/hash_merge.rb
+require_relative 'bm_setup'
+
+# rubocop:disable Style/HashEachMethods
+
+display_benchmark_header
+
+# Bad per Rubocop
+def hash_keys_each(hash)
+  hash.keys.each { |k| k + 1 }
+
+  # Return nil to avoid array creation penalty which may skew benchmark
+  nil
+end
+
+# Good per Rubocop
+def hash_each_key(hash)
+  hash.each_key { |k| k + 1 }
+
+  # Return nil to avoid array creation penalty which may skew benchmark
+  nil
+end
+
+[
+  [],
+  (1..5),
+  (1..10),
+  (1..20),
+  (1..100),
+  (1..500),
+].each do |data|
+  test_hash = data.zip(data).to_h
+
+  section "Hash key enumeration (size=#{data.size})" do |bench|
+    bench.report("Hash.keys.each") do
+      hash_keys_each(test_hash)
+    end
+
+    bench.report("Hash.each_key") do
+      hash_each_key(test_hash)
+    end
+  end
+end
+
+# Bad per Rubocop
+def hash_values_each(hash)
+  hash.values.each { |v| v + 1 }
+
+  # Return nil to avoid array creation penalty which may skew benchmark
+  nil
+end
+
+# Good per Rubocop
+def hash_each_value(hash)
+  hash.each_value { |v| v + 1 }
+
+  # Return nil to avoid array creation penalty which may skew benchmark
+  nil
+end
+
+[
+  [],
+  (1..5),
+  (1..10),
+  (1..20),
+  (1..100),
+  (1..500),
+].each do |data|
+  test_hash = data.zip(data).to_h
+
+  section "Hash value enumeration (size=#{data.size})" do |bench|
+    bench.report("Hash.values.each") do
+      hash_values_each(test_hash)
+    end
+
+    bench.report("Hash.each_value") do
+      hash_each_value(test_hash)
+    end
+  end
+end
+
+# rubocop:enable Style/HashEachMethods
+
+__END__
+
+### Environment
+
+Heroku Performance-L Dyno
+
+ruby 2.7.3p183 (2021-04-05 revision 6847ee089d) [x86_64-linux]
+GC Disabled: false
+
+### Test Cases
+
+Behavior for the keys and value enumerations is roughly equivalent. As
+hypothesized the `each_xyz` versions are faster. What is surprising is that the
+performance difference drops off drastically the larger the hash, even for
+small hash sizes. Basically, once the hash reaches 10 times, the performance
+gains are constant after that point (around 1 - 4%).
+
+#### Hash key enumeration (size=0)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each   913.942k i/100ms
+       Hash.each_key     1.376M i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each      9.167M (± 0.0%) i/s -     46.611M in   5.084564s
+       Hash.each_key     13.734M (± 0.2%) i/s -     68.779M in   5.008581s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+       Hash.each_key: 13734476.7 i/s
+      Hash.keys.each:  9167168.9 i/s - 1.50x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash key enumeration (size=5)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each   319.678k i/100ms
+       Hash.each_key   360.081k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each      3.190M (± 0.4%) i/s -     15.984M in   5.012434s
+       Hash.each_key      3.596M (± 0.0%) i/s -     18.004M in   5.006636s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+       Hash.each_key:  3596043.0 i/s
+      Hash.keys.each:  3189893.5 i/s - 1.13x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash key enumeration (size=10)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each   201.546k i/100ms
+       Hash.each_key   209.461k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each      2.019M (± 0.3%) i/s -     10.279M in   5.092727s
+       Hash.each_key      2.095M (± 0.0%) i/s -     10.683M in   5.099576s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+       Hash.each_key:  2094785.3 i/s
+      Hash.keys.each:  2018768.6 i/s - 1.04x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash key enumeration (size=20)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each   118.004k i/100ms
+       Hash.each_key   118.320k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each      1.176M (± 0.4%) i/s -      5.900M in   5.021554s
+       Hash.each_key      1.182M (± 0.2%) i/s -      5.916M in   5.006809s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+       Hash.each_key:  1181738.4 i/s
+      Hash.keys.each:  1175522.6 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash key enumeration (size=100)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each    27.217k i/100ms
+       Hash.each_key    26.138k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each    272.497k (± 0.0%) i/s -      1.388M in   5.093882s
+       Hash.each_key    260.563k (± 0.4%) i/s -      1.307M in   5.017483s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+      Hash.keys.each:   272497.2 i/s
+       Hash.each_key:   260563.2 i/s - 1.05x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash key enumeration (size=500)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each     5.592k i/100ms
+       Hash.each_key     5.404k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+      Hash.keys.each     55.763k (± 0.2%) i/s -    279.600k in   5.014897s
+       Hash.each_key     54.060k (± 0.1%) i/s -    275.604k in   5.098253s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+      Hash.keys.each:    55763.3 i/s
+       Hash.each_key:    54060.3 i/s - 1.03x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash value enumeration (size=0)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each   922.361k i/100ms
+     Hash.each_value     1.372M i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each      9.229M (± 0.0%) i/s -     47.040M in   5.096857s
+     Hash.each_value     13.736M (± 0.0%) i/s -     69.983M in   5.094986s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+     Hash.each_value: 13735592.7 i/s
+    Hash.values.each:  9229287.5 i/s - 1.49x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash value enumeration (size=5)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each   317.174k i/100ms
+     Hash.each_value   358.507k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each      3.190M (± 0.0%) i/s -     16.176M in   5.071511s
+     Hash.each_value      3.582M (± 0.0%) i/s -     17.925M in   5.004607s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+     Hash.each_value:  3581759.4 i/s
+    Hash.values.each:  3189555.5 i/s - 1.12x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash value enumeration (size=10)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each   201.766k i/100ms
+     Hash.each_value   209.128k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each      2.032M (± 0.0%) i/s -     10.290M in   5.065224s
+     Hash.each_value      2.093M (± 0.0%) i/s -     10.666M in   5.096053s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+     Hash.each_value:  2092905.3 i/s
+    Hash.values.each:  2031517.4 i/s - 1.03x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash value enumeration (size=20)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each   117.255k i/100ms
+     Hash.each_value   117.577k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each      1.182M (± 0.1%) i/s -      5.980M in   5.058729s
+     Hash.each_value      1.176M (± 0.0%) i/s -      5.996M in   5.098809s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+    Hash.values.each:  1182126.7 i/s
+     Hash.each_value:  1176047.5 i/s - 1.01x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash value enumeration (size=100)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each    27.263k i/100ms
+     Hash.each_value    26.208k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each    275.209k (± 0.0%) i/s -      1.390M in   5.052242s
+     Hash.each_value    261.696k (± 0.0%) i/s -      1.310M in   5.007358s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+    Hash.values.each:   275209.0 i/s
+     Hash.each_value:   261696.2 i/s - 1.05x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```
+
+#### Hash value enumeration (size=500)
+
+```
+Warming up --------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each     5.586k i/100ms
+     Hash.each_value     5.408k i/100ms
+Calculating -------------------------------------
+    Hash.values.each     56.245k (± 0.2%) i/s -    284.886k in   5.066190s
+     Hash.each_value     54.104k (± 0.0%) i/s -    275.808k in   5.097780s
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+
+Comparison:
+    Hash.values.each:    56244.5 i/s
+     Hash.each_value:    54104.0 i/s - 1.04x  (± 0.00) slower
+                   with 95.0% confidence
+```

data/benchmarks/hash_merge.rb

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ require_relative 'bm_setup'
 
 display_benchmark_header
 
-ENUM = (1..100)
+ENUM = (1..100).freeze
 
 def hash_merge
   tmp = {}