Experiment with lazy allocation for empty DenseBitSet storage#157024
Experiment with lazy allocation for empty DenseBitSet storage#157024Jamesbarford wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Experiment with lazy allocation for empty DenseBitSet storage
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (4731326): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf. Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -2.3%, secondary -5.7%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 2.5%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (secondary 0.0%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 510.991s -> 512.432s (0.28%) |
Looking at; github.com//pull/141325/changes#diff-97fbe92bf4d0e17d698ec0b8f45cd215786376572a51a36b641f84c66dc2281f and seeing what impact a naive implementation of lazily instantiating the Vector backed storage has on performance.
r? @ghost