benchmark VS hyperfine

I'm aware of one by Google that I used a couple times, but IMO it's better to capture real runtime data from a fully-operational process than to carve out the benchmarkable bits and test them in isolation, so I track information during program testing and print it all to a log instead of using things like that.

If you just want to do some quick benchmarks, you can just use std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(). Call it before the code that you are benchmarking and then immediately after. Take them away and you have your duration. If you want to use a proper benchmarking tool then I can totally recommend Google Benchmark. Fantastic benchmarking tool. Honourable mention would be Quick Bench which is an online tool that uses Google Benchmark.

I tried to install google benchmark(https://github.com/google/benchmark) in my ubuntu machine by :

We don't know if it's a lie until we verify it and that's not difficult, you have a quicksort implementation in a couple of languages, you'll need to pass the necessary parameters to show the time needed by a function call to execute to the compiler or interpreter or you may use use a library(like benchmark for C++) and you're good to go.

If you are uncertain about the performance characteristics of a function you should ALWAYS benchmark it. Googles Benchmark library is wonderful for quick micro benchmarks. For more complex things, perhaps look into profiling and then look at invocation counts of copy constructors.

Your compiler may be optimising away your loop, there. I typically use a micro-benchmarking tool for these types of tests. You could try Google Benchmark. It’s available in most OS’ package managers, but pretty easy to build from source if not

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.

Check out the official hyperfine Github repo

And then I used hyperfine to run the benchmarks on my MacBook Pro 14 M2 Max, and here are the results:

Search "benchmarking tools for linux" and decide that hyperfine is good for what I'm doing. Run Jennifer's new python script against my refactored perl and find that the python is 1.26 times faster for k=3 and 1.47 times faster for k=4. For the Covid-19 sequence, these are both on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.

> It is very possible to write sub 100ms procedures in TS, […]

I will not disagree with this statement because I don’t have a way to test inshellisense right now. Could you (or anyone with a working Node + NPM installation) please install inshellisense and post the actual numbers? Perhaps using a tool like hyperfine (https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine).

Yeah, while it's not as thorough as these tools, the method is at least reproducible and sane, and with ~10 or so samples, you get an interval with a nice confidence.

Another through method will be hyperfine[0], yet I wanted to provide a method which requires no installation and can be done in a whim, without jumps and hoops, with the tools already at hand.

[0]: https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine

That is native and inbuild but I would suggest below options instead 1. Using lazy's Profile tab instead https://github.com/folke/lazy.nvim 2. Using a dedicated plugin to do this https://github.com/dstein64/vim-startuptime. 3. Using an external program hyperfine is one that I use https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine

Fair enough, although might I recommend using hyperfine for your testing? ;p