make rust function benchmarks more similar to the Python ones #2896
Conversation
This file contains 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We have some benchmarks in
pytests/tests/test_pyfunctions.pywhich I occasionally peek at, which compares some#[pyfunction]performance with pure-Python equivalents. It's designed purely to measure the overheads.The existing comparison wasn't exactly fair because it used Rust types such as i32 on the Rust side, meaning there was additional runtime type checking going on compared to the Python implementations.
I've removed that in this PR, making all the input types on the Rust side just
&PyAnyorOption<&PyAny>. This does reduce the gap between the Python and Rust ones where we're slower, however it shows there is still some wins we could yet find in overhead reduction.