benchmark,lib: add process.hrtime.bigint benchmark #26381
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Add a benchmark, and amend the relevant source code comment to state that currently, switching to directly returning a BigInt is not stopped by technical obstacles but rather the fact that using a typed array is actually a bit faster (about 2.5 %, measured locally).
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
process
jasnell
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2019
lpinca
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2019
cjihrig
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2019
BridgeAR
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2019
|
Landed in 69906fb |
addaleax
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2019
Add a benchmark, and amend the relevant source code comment to state that currently, switching to directly returning a BigInt is not stopped by technical obstacles but rather the fact that using a typed array is actually a bit faster (about 2.5 %, measured locally). PR-URL: #26381 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
BridgeAR
pushed a commit
to BridgeAR/node
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2019
Add a benchmark, and amend the relevant source code comment to state that currently, switching to directly returning a BigInt is not stopped by technical obstacles but rather the fact that using a typed array is actually a bit faster (about 2.5 %, measured locally). PR-URL: nodejs#26381 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
BethGriggs
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2019
Add a benchmark, and amend the relevant source code comment to state that currently, switching to directly returning a BigInt is not stopped by technical obstacles but rather the fact that using a typed array is actually a bit faster (about 2.5 %, measured locally). PR-URL: #26381 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Merged
This was referenced May 29, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add a benchmark, and amend the relevant source code comment to state
that currently, switching to directly returning a BigInt is not
stopped by technical obstacles but rather the fact that using a typed
array is actually a bit faster (about 2.5 %, measured locally).
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes