dolysis
/
benchmark
mirror of https://github.com/google/benchmark.git
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
benchmark/test/user_counters_thousands_tes...

187 lines
9.5 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
#undef NDEBUG
#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
#include "output_test.h"
// ========================================================================= //
// ------------------------ Thousands Customisation ------------------------ //
// ========================================================================= //
void BM_Counters_Thousands(benchmark::State& state) {
for (auto _ : state) {
}
namespace bm = benchmark;
state.counters.insert({
{"t0_1000000DefaultBase",
bm::Counter(1000 * 1000, bm::Counter::kDefaults)},
{"t1_1000000Base1000", bm::Counter(1000 * 1000, bm::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1000)},
{"t2_1000000Base1024", bm::Counter(1000 * 1000, bm::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024)},
{"t3_1048576Base1000", bm::Counter(1024 * 1024, bm::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1000)},
{"t4_1048576Base1024", bm::Counter(1024 * 1024, bm::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024)},
});
}
BENCHMARK(BM_Counters_Thousands)->Repetitions(2);
ADD_CASES(
TC_ConsoleOut,
{
{"^BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2 %console_report "
"t0_1000000DefaultBase=1000k "
"t1_1000000Base1000=1000k t2_1000000Base1024=976.56[23]k "
"t3_1048576Base1000=1048.58k t4_1048576Base1024=1024k$"},
{"^BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2 %console_report "
"t0_1000000DefaultBase=1000k "
"t1_1000000Base1000=1000k t2_1000000Base1024=976.56[23]k "
"t3_1048576Base1000=1048.58k t4_1048576Base1024=1024k$"},
{"^BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_mean %console_report "
"t0_1000000DefaultBase=1000k t1_1000000Base1000=1000k "
"t2_1000000Base1024=976.56[23]k t3_1048576Base1000=1048.58k "
"t4_1048576Base1024=1024k$"},
{"^BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_median %console_report "
"t0_1000000DefaultBase=1000k t1_1000000Base1000=1000k "
"t2_1000000Base1024=976.56[23]k t3_1048576Base1000=1048.58k "
"t4_1048576Base1024=1024k$"},
Aggregates: use non-aggregate count as iteration count. (#706) It is incorrect to say that an aggregate is computed over run's iterations, because those iterations already got averaged. Similarly, if there are N repetitions with 1 iterations each, an aggregate will be computed over N measurements, not 1. Thus it is best to simply use the count of separate reports. Fixes #586.
2018-10-18 14:17:14 +00:00
{"^BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_stddev %console_time_only_report [ "
"]*2 t0_1000000DefaultBase=0 t1_1000000Base1000=0 "
"t2_1000000Base1024=0 t3_1048576Base1000=0 t4_1048576Base1024=0$"},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
});
ADD_CASES(TC_JSONOut,
{{"\"name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$"},
Introduce "family index" field into JSON output (#1164) It may be useful for those wishing to further post-process JSON results, but it is mainly geared towards better support for run interleaving, where results from the same family may not be close-by in the JSON. While we won't be able to do much about that for outputs, the tools can and perhaps should reorder the results to that at least in their output they are in proper order, not run order. Note that this only counts the families that were filtered-in, so if e.g. there were three families, and we filtered-out the second one, the two families (which were first and third) will have family indexes 0 and 1.
2021-06-02 15:06:45 +00:00
{"\"family_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Introduce per-family instance index (#1165) Much like it makes sense to enumerate all the families, it makes sense to enumerate stuff within families. Alternatively, we could have a global instance index, but i'm not sure why that would be better. This will be useful when the benchmarks are run not in order, for the tools to sort the results properly.
2021-06-02 20:45:41 +00:00
{"\"per_family_instance_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"run_name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"run_type\": \"iteration\",$", MR_Next},
[JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output (#748) * [JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output, for better ide… [Tests] explicitly check for thread == 1 [Tests] specifically mark all repetition checks [JSON] add repetition_index reporting, but only for non-aggregates (i… * [Formatting] Be very, very explicit about pointer alignment so clang-format can not put pointers/references on the wrong side of arguments. [Benchmark::Run] Make sure to use explanatory sentinel variable rather than a magic number. * Do not pass redundant information
2019-03-26 09:53:07 +00:00
{"\"repetitions\": 2,$", MR_Next},
{"\"repetition_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
{"\"threads\": 1,$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"iterations\": %int,$", MR_Next},
{"\"real_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"cpu_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"time_unit\": \"ns\",$", MR_Next},
{"\"t0_1000000DefaultBase\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t1_1000000Base1000\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t2_1000000Base1024\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t3_1048576Base1000\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t4_1048576Base1024\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6$", MR_Next},
{"}", MR_Next}});
ADD_CASES(TC_JSONOut,
{{"\"name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$"},
Introduce "family index" field into JSON output (#1164) It may be useful for those wishing to further post-process JSON results, but it is mainly geared towards better support for run interleaving, where results from the same family may not be close-by in the JSON. While we won't be able to do much about that for outputs, the tools can and perhaps should reorder the results to that at least in their output they are in proper order, not run order. Note that this only counts the families that were filtered-in, so if e.g. there were three families, and we filtered-out the second one, the two families (which were first and third) will have family indexes 0 and 1.
2021-06-02 15:06:45 +00:00
{"\"family_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Introduce per-family instance index (#1165) Much like it makes sense to enumerate all the families, it makes sense to enumerate stuff within families. Alternatively, we could have a global instance index, but i'm not sure why that would be better. This will be useful when the benchmarks are run not in order, for the tools to sort the results properly.
2021-06-02 20:45:41 +00:00
{"\"per_family_instance_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"run_name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"run_type\": \"iteration\",$", MR_Next},
[JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output (#748) * [JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output, for better ide… [Tests] explicitly check for thread == 1 [Tests] specifically mark all repetition checks [JSON] add repetition_index reporting, but only for non-aggregates (i… * [Formatting] Be very, very explicit about pointer alignment so clang-format can not put pointers/references on the wrong side of arguments. [Benchmark::Run] Make sure to use explanatory sentinel variable rather than a magic number. * Do not pass redundant information
2019-03-26 09:53:07 +00:00
{"\"repetitions\": 2,$", MR_Next},
{"\"repetition_index\": 1,$", MR_Next},
{"\"threads\": 1,$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"iterations\": %int,$", MR_Next},
{"\"real_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"cpu_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"time_unit\": \"ns\",$", MR_Next},
{"\"t0_1000000DefaultBase\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t1_1000000Base1000\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t2_1000000Base1024\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t3_1048576Base1000\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t4_1048576Base1024\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6$", MR_Next},
{"}", MR_Next}});
ADD_CASES(TC_JSONOut,
{{"\"name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_mean\",$"},
Introduce "family index" field into JSON output (#1164) It may be useful for those wishing to further post-process JSON results, but it is mainly geared towards better support for run interleaving, where results from the same family may not be close-by in the JSON. While we won't be able to do much about that for outputs, the tools can and perhaps should reorder the results to that at least in their output they are in proper order, not run order. Note that this only counts the families that were filtered-in, so if e.g. there were three families, and we filtered-out the second one, the two families (which were first and third) will have family indexes 0 and 1.
2021-06-02 15:06:45 +00:00
{"\"family_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Introduce per-family instance index (#1165) Much like it makes sense to enumerate all the families, it makes sense to enumerate stuff within families. Alternatively, we could have a global instance index, but i'm not sure why that would be better. This will be useful when the benchmarks are run not in order, for the tools to sort the results properly.
2021-06-02 20:45:41 +00:00
{"\"per_family_instance_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"run_name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"run_type\": \"aggregate\",$", MR_Next},
[JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output (#748) * [JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output, for better ide… [Tests] explicitly check for thread == 1 [Tests] specifically mark all repetition checks [JSON] add repetition_index reporting, but only for non-aggregates (i… * [Formatting] Be very, very explicit about pointer alignment so clang-format can not put pointers/references on the wrong side of arguments. [Benchmark::Run] Make sure to use explanatory sentinel variable rather than a magic number. * Do not pass redundant information
2019-03-26 09:53:07 +00:00
{"\"repetitions\": 2,$", MR_Next},
{"\"threads\": 1,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"aggregate_name\": \"mean\",$", MR_Next},
Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time (#1219) * Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time I think, `stddev` statistic is useful, but confusing. What does it mean if `stddev` of `1ms` is reported? Is that good or bad? If the `median` is `1s`, then that means that the measurements are pretty noise-less. And what about `stddev` of `100ms` is reported? If the `median` is `1s` - awful, if the `median` is `10s` - good. And hurray, there is just the statistic that we need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation But, naturally, that produces a value in percents, but the statistics are currently hardcoded to produce time. So this refactors thinkgs a bit, and allows a percentage unit for statistics. I'm not sure whether or not `benchmark` would be okay with adding this `RSD` statistic by default, but regales, that is a separate patch. Refs. https://github.com/google/benchmark/issues/1146 * Address review notes
2021-09-03 14:36:56 +00:00
{"\"aggregate_unit\": \"time\",$", MR_Next},
Aggregates: use non-aggregate count as iteration count. (#706) It is incorrect to say that an aggregate is computed over run's iterations, because those iterations already got averaged. Similarly, if there are N repetitions with 1 iterations each, an aggregate will be computed over N measurements, not 1. Thus it is best to simply use the count of separate reports. Fixes #586.
2018-10-18 14:17:14 +00:00
{"\"iterations\": 2,$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"real_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"cpu_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"time_unit\": \"ns\",$", MR_Next},
{"\"t0_1000000DefaultBase\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t1_1000000Base1000\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t2_1000000Base1024\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t3_1048576Base1000\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t4_1048576Base1024\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6$", MR_Next},
{"}", MR_Next}});
ADD_CASES(TC_JSONOut,
{{"\"name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_median\",$"},
Introduce "family index" field into JSON output (#1164) It may be useful for those wishing to further post-process JSON results, but it is mainly geared towards better support for run interleaving, where results from the same family may not be close-by in the JSON. While we won't be able to do much about that for outputs, the tools can and perhaps should reorder the results to that at least in their output they are in proper order, not run order. Note that this only counts the families that were filtered-in, so if e.g. there were three families, and we filtered-out the second one, the two families (which were first and third) will have family indexes 0 and 1.
2021-06-02 15:06:45 +00:00
{"\"family_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Introduce per-family instance index (#1165) Much like it makes sense to enumerate all the families, it makes sense to enumerate stuff within families. Alternatively, we could have a global instance index, but i'm not sure why that would be better. This will be useful when the benchmarks are run not in order, for the tools to sort the results properly.
2021-06-02 20:45:41 +00:00
{"\"per_family_instance_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"run_name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"run_type\": \"aggregate\",$", MR_Next},
[JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output (#748) * [JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output, for better ide… [Tests] explicitly check for thread == 1 [Tests] specifically mark all repetition checks [JSON] add repetition_index reporting, but only for non-aggregates (i… * [Formatting] Be very, very explicit about pointer alignment so clang-format can not put pointers/references on the wrong side of arguments. [Benchmark::Run] Make sure to use explanatory sentinel variable rather than a magic number. * Do not pass redundant information
2019-03-26 09:53:07 +00:00
{"\"repetitions\": 2,$", MR_Next},
{"\"threads\": 1,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"aggregate_name\": \"median\",$", MR_Next},
Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time (#1219) * Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time I think, `stddev` statistic is useful, but confusing. What does it mean if `stddev` of `1ms` is reported? Is that good or bad? If the `median` is `1s`, then that means that the measurements are pretty noise-less. And what about `stddev` of `100ms` is reported? If the `median` is `1s` - awful, if the `median` is `10s` - good. And hurray, there is just the statistic that we need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation But, naturally, that produces a value in percents, but the statistics are currently hardcoded to produce time. So this refactors thinkgs a bit, and allows a percentage unit for statistics. I'm not sure whether or not `benchmark` would be okay with adding this `RSD` statistic by default, but regales, that is a separate patch. Refs. https://github.com/google/benchmark/issues/1146 * Address review notes
2021-09-03 14:36:56 +00:00
{"\"aggregate_unit\": \"time\",$", MR_Next},
Aggregates: use non-aggregate count as iteration count. (#706) It is incorrect to say that an aggregate is computed over run's iterations, because those iterations already got averaged. Similarly, if there are N repetitions with 1 iterations each, an aggregate will be computed over N measurements, not 1. Thus it is best to simply use the count of separate reports. Fixes #586.
2018-10-18 14:17:14 +00:00
{"\"iterations\": 2,$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"real_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"cpu_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"time_unit\": \"ns\",$", MR_Next},
{"\"t0_1000000DefaultBase\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t1_1000000Base1000\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t2_1000000Base1024\": 1\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t3_1048576Base1000\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t4_1048576Base1024\": 1\\.048576(0)*e\\+(0)*6$", MR_Next},
{"}", MR_Next}});
ADD_CASES(TC_JSONOut,
{{"\"name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_stddev\",$"},
Introduce "family index" field into JSON output (#1164) It may be useful for those wishing to further post-process JSON results, but it is mainly geared towards better support for run interleaving, where results from the same family may not be close-by in the JSON. While we won't be able to do much about that for outputs, the tools can and perhaps should reorder the results to that at least in their output they are in proper order, not run order. Note that this only counts the families that were filtered-in, so if e.g. there were three families, and we filtered-out the second one, the two families (which were first and third) will have family indexes 0 and 1.
2021-06-02 15:06:45 +00:00
{"\"family_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Introduce per-family instance index (#1165) Much like it makes sense to enumerate all the families, it makes sense to enumerate stuff within families. Alternatively, we could have a global instance index, but i'm not sure why that would be better. This will be useful when the benchmarks are run not in order, for the tools to sort the results properly.
2021-06-02 20:45:41 +00:00
{"\"per_family_instance_index\": 0,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"run_name\": \"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2\",$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"run_type\": \"aggregate\",$", MR_Next},
[JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output (#748) * [JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output, for better ide… [Tests] explicitly check for thread == 1 [Tests] specifically mark all repetition checks [JSON] add repetition_index reporting, but only for non-aggregates (i… * [Formatting] Be very, very explicit about pointer alignment so clang-format can not put pointers/references on the wrong side of arguments. [Benchmark::Run] Make sure to use explanatory sentinel variable rather than a magic number. * Do not pass redundant information
2019-03-26 09:53:07 +00:00
{"\"repetitions\": 2,$", MR_Next},
{"\"threads\": 1,$", MR_Next},
Track two more details about runs - the aggregate name, and run name. (#675) This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it. Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON: * If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored. It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name. * The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored. I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix. This way one can group/filter all the runs, and filter by the particular aggregate type. I *might* need this for further tooling improvement. Or maybe not. But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
2018-09-13 12:08:15 +00:00
{"\"aggregate_name\": \"stddev\",$", MR_Next},
Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time (#1219) * Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time I think, `stddev` statistic is useful, but confusing. What does it mean if `stddev` of `1ms` is reported? Is that good or bad? If the `median` is `1s`, then that means that the measurements are pretty noise-less. And what about `stddev` of `100ms` is reported? If the `median` is `1s` - awful, if the `median` is `10s` - good. And hurray, there is just the statistic that we need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation But, naturally, that produces a value in percents, but the statistics are currently hardcoded to produce time. So this refactors thinkgs a bit, and allows a percentage unit for statistics. I'm not sure whether or not `benchmark` would be okay with adding this `RSD` statistic by default, but regales, that is a separate patch. Refs. https://github.com/google/benchmark/issues/1146 * Address review notes
2021-09-03 14:36:56 +00:00
{"\"aggregate_unit\": \"time\",$", MR_Next},
Aggregates: use non-aggregate count as iteration count. (#706) It is incorrect to say that an aggregate is computed over run's iterations, because those iterations already got averaged. Similarly, if there are N repetitions with 1 iterations each, an aggregate will be computed over N measurements, not 1. Thus it is best to simply use the count of separate reports. Fixes #586.
2018-10-18 14:17:14 +00:00
{"\"iterations\": 2,$", MR_Next},
Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. (#657) * Counter(): add 'one thousand' param. Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654 Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000. If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024. Some bikeshedding points: 1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on into custom types with names? I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now. 2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}() static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far, will be the most used? 3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON. * Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand' * Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024. Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason to need something more advanced, it can be added later on. * Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly * Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
2018-08-29 18:11:06 +00:00
{"\"real_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"cpu_time\": %float,$", MR_Next},
{"\"time_unit\": \"ns\",$", MR_Next},
{"\"t0_1000000DefaultBase\": 0\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t1_1000000Base1000\": 0\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t2_1000000Base1024\": 0\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t3_1048576Base1000\": 0\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*,$", MR_Next},
{"\"t4_1048576Base1024\": 0\\.(0)*e\\+(0)*$", MR_Next},
{"}", MR_Next}});
ADD_CASES(
TC_CSVOut,
{{"^\"BM_Counters_Thousands/"
"repeats:2\",%csv_report,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1\\.04858e\\+("
"0)*6,1\\.04858e\\+(0)*6$"},
{"^\"BM_Counters_Thousands/"
"repeats:2\",%csv_report,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1\\.04858e\\+("
"0)*6,1\\.04858e\\+(0)*6$"},
{"^\"BM_Counters_Thousands/"
"repeats:2_mean\",%csv_report,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1\\."
"04858e\\+(0)*6,1\\.04858e\\+(0)*6$"},
{"^\"BM_Counters_Thousands/"
"repeats:2_median\",%csv_report,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1e\\+(0)*6,1\\."
"04858e\\+(0)*6,1\\.04858e\\+(0)*6$"},
{"^\"BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2_stddev\",%csv_report,0,0,0,0,0$"}});
// VS2013 does not allow this function to be passed as a lambda argument
// to CHECK_BENCHMARK_RESULTS()
void CheckThousands(Results const& e) {
if (e.name != "BM_Counters_Thousands/repeats:2")
return; // Do not check the aggregates!
// check that the values are within 0.01% of the expected values
CHECK_FLOAT_COUNTER_VALUE(e, "t0_1000000DefaultBase", EQ, 1000 * 1000,
0.0001);
CHECK_FLOAT_COUNTER_VALUE(e, "t1_1000000Base1000", EQ, 1000 * 1000, 0.0001);
CHECK_FLOAT_COUNTER_VALUE(e, "t2_1000000Base1024", EQ, 1000 * 1000, 0.0001);
CHECK_FLOAT_COUNTER_VALUE(e, "t3_1048576Base1000", EQ, 1024 * 1024, 0.0001);
CHECK_FLOAT_COUNTER_VALUE(e, "t4_1048576Base1024", EQ, 1024 * 1024, 0.0001);
}
CHECK_BENCHMARK_RESULTS("BM_Counters_Thousands", &CheckThousands);
// ========================================================================= //
// --------------------------- TEST CASES END ------------------------------ //
// ========================================================================= //
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { RunOutputTests(argc, argv); }