Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

benchmark: replace more [].join() with ''.repeat() #12317

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

benchmark: replace more [].join() with ''.repeat() #12317

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion benchmark/child_process/child-process-read.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ function main(conf) {
const dur = +conf.dur;
const len = +conf.len;

const msg = '"' + Array(len).join('.') + '"';
const msg = `"${'.'.repeat(len)}"`;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is doing something different from before, it should be '.'.repeat(len - 1).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, in the strict sense. But it is not a test, so there are no assertions or checks. It seems, the intention was the length should be [64, 256, 1024, 4096], just + 1 was not bothered to be added. Or do I miss something?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure -- since you only ran the linter, I had assumed that this wasn't intended to make any functional changes to the code. (Since it seems like the functional changes are intentional, please ignore this review.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've run only the linter because it seems CI does not run benchmarks. There are some new tests for this, but they cover only net and http benchmarks for now. But I've run these files locally and have not found any difference or errors. However, to be on the safe side: @nodejs/benchmarking , @nodejs/performance — what do you think?

const options = { 'stdio': ['ignore', 'pipe', 'ignore'] };
const child = spawn('yes', [msg], options);

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion benchmark/http/_chunky_http_client.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ function main(conf) {
// Chose 7 because 9 showed "Connection error" / "Connection closed"
// An odd number could result in a better length dispersion.
for (var i = 7; i <= 7 * 7 * 7; i *= 7)
headers.push(Array(i + 1).join('o'));
headers.push('o'.repeat(i));

function WriteHTTPHeaders(channel, has_keep_alive, extra_header_count) {
todo = [];
Expand Down