Correct TarSum benchmarks: 9kTar and 9kTarGzip
These two cases did not actually read the same content with each iteration of the benchmark. After the first read, the buffer was consumed. This patch corrects this by using a bytes.Reader and seeking to the beginning of the buffer at the beginning of each iteration. Unfortunately, this benchmark was not actually as fast as we believed. But the new results do bring its results closer to those of the other benchmarks. Docker-DCO-1.1-Signed-off-by: Josh Hawn <josh.hawn@docker.com> (github: jlhawn)
This commit is contained in:
parent
2b403ab360
commit
985d3bd404
1 changed files with 8 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -486,10 +486,13 @@ func Benchmark9kTar(b *testing.B) {
|
|||
n, err := io.Copy(buf, fh)
|
||||
fh.Close()
|
||||
|
||||
reader := bytes.NewReader(buf.Bytes())
|
||||
|
||||
b.SetBytes(n)
|
||||
b.ResetTimer()
|
||||
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
|
||||
ts, err := NewTarSum(buf, true, Version0)
|
||||
reader.Seek(0, 0)
|
||||
ts, err := NewTarSum(reader, true, Version0)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
b.Error(err)
|
||||
return
|
||||
|
@ -509,10 +512,13 @@ func Benchmark9kTarGzip(b *testing.B) {
|
|||
n, err := io.Copy(buf, fh)
|
||||
fh.Close()
|
||||
|
||||
reader := bytes.NewReader(buf.Bytes())
|
||||
|
||||
b.SetBytes(n)
|
||||
b.ResetTimer()
|
||||
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
|
||||
ts, err := NewTarSum(buf, false, Version0)
|
||||
reader.Seek(0, 0)
|
||||
ts, err := NewTarSum(reader, false, Version0)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
b.Error(err)
|
||||
return
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue