You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is not a bug, more of an observation that's interesting to make searchable in an issue.
Since we upgraded to Boost 1.83 the test that asserts that murmur hash lookup performance is better than the default Boost hash lookup performance regularly fails, even with an 8% tolerance on the timings.
The most obvious thing to note here is the massive variation in performance that the BuildKite Kubernetes cluster that we run on delivers. So we cannot compare the 3 sample runs with each other. But within each run it's pretty clear that murmur hash is significantly faster for lookups than Boost hash.
Since the Boost upgrade from 1.77 to 1.83 we have these:
The first is an example of where the test passed due to the 8% tolerance, but Boost hash was still faster. The second is an example of a test failure as Boost hash was faster by more than 8%.
Based on these figures it would be going too far to say Boost hash is now better. The performance of the two hash algorithms is roughly the same now. This means there's no value in removing murmur hash from our codebase, but equally no benefit in jumping through hoops to use it in preference to Boost hash in future code changes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is not a bug, more of an observation that's interesting to make searchable in an issue.
Since we upgraded to Boost 1.83 the test that asserts that murmur hash lookup performance is better than the default Boost hash lookup performance regularly fails, even with an 8% tolerance on the timings.
ml-cpp/lib/core/unittest/CHashingTest.cc
Line 316 in 0ee9833
Some examples of timings from before the Boost upgrade:
The most obvious thing to note here is the massive variation in performance that the BuildKite Kubernetes cluster that we run on delivers. So we cannot compare the 3 sample runs with each other. But within each run it's pretty clear that murmur hash is significantly faster for lookups than Boost hash.
Since the Boost upgrade from 1.77 to 1.83 we have these:
The first is an example of where the test passed due to the 8% tolerance, but Boost hash was still faster. The second is an example of a test failure as Boost hash was faster by more than 8%.
Based on these figures it would be going too far to say Boost hash is now better. The performance of the two hash algorithms is roughly the same now. This means there's no value in removing murmur hash from our codebase, but equally no benefit in jumping through hoops to use it in preference to Boost hash in future code changes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: