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.

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

streams2 write stream #177

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

streams2 write stream #177

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Aug 17, 2013

This is the writeable stream component for the streams2 issue #161 to go along with pull #176. The api is no longer requires listening for a ready event before being able to call .end(), .destroy(), and .destroySoon().

BEFORE (75104e0):

$ node stream-bench.js 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Filled source! Took 35280ms, streaming to destination...
Done! Took 36435ms, 103% of batch time

AFTER (15c53d7):

$ node stream-bench.js 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Filled source! Took 34257ms, streaming to destination...
Done! Took 36344ms, 106% of batch time

There is a minor slowdown but it might just be noise.

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor

pgte commented Aug 18, 2013

@substack There is a PR for revamping the writeStream implementation based on streams2.
This PR takes what @rvagg did on the write-stream-optimization-benchmark branch regarding performance and matches up.

It would be useful if you could compare this PR to the performance of any of these branches?
Also, is there any feature in my PR that this PR covers?

Thanks!

@juliangruber
Copy link
Member

@substack needs simple-bufferstream dependency

@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Aug 27, 2013

simple-bufferstream is only for fstream support which needs to be removed completely when a writestream replacement is merged

@ghost ghost closed this Jan 29, 2014
@mcollina mcollina mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2015
3 tasks
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants