www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - vibe.d on Web Framework Benchmarks

reply =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:
Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is not higher in 
the rating...

 
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune

Ali
Jun 07
next sibling parent reply Ozan <ozan.sueel gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 09:44:55 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is not 
 higher in the rating...


 https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune

 Ali
Same for me. I used a lot of Java (Jetty, Tomcat) and Groovy (Grails) stuff before using D (vibe.d). On my machine I got a factor of 10-50 in difference. Vibe.d was always much faster. So where are the results coming from? Regards, Ozan
Jun 07
next sibling parent bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 14:56:56 UTC, Ozan wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 09:44:55 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is not 
 higher in the rating...


 https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune

 Ali
Same for me. I used a lot of Java (Jetty, Tomcat) and Groovy (Grails) stuff before using D (vibe.d). On my machine I got a factor of 10-50 in difference. Vibe.d was always much faster. So where are the results coming from? Regards, Ozan
I second this. I have always had better performance with vibe.d versus other frameworks.
Jun 07
prev sibling parent reply ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
Ozan wrote:

 On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 09:44:55 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is not higher in 
 the rating...

 https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune
Same for me. I used a lot of Java (Jetty, Tomcat) and Groovy (Grails) stuff before using D (vibe.d). On my machine I got a factor of 10-50 in difference. Vibe.d was always much faster. So where are the results coming from?
most of it came from microbenchmarking. "how fast can we parse json and query db?" wow, what a great benchmark! surely, we don't need to do any data processing, let's measure raw speed of parsing data, and then throwing it away!
Jun 07
next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:18:21AM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Ozan wrote:
 
 On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 09:44:55 UTC, Ali ehreli wrote:
 Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is not
 higher in the rating...
 
 https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune
 
Same for me. I used a lot of Java (Jetty, Tomcat) and Groovy (Grails) stuff before using D (vibe.d). On my machine I got a factor of 10-50 in difference. Vibe.d was always much faster. So where are the results coming from?
most of it came from microbenchmarking. "how fast can we parse json and query db?" wow, what a great benchmark! surely, we don't need to do any data processing, let's measure raw speed of parsing data, and then throwing it away!
Yes, data processing performance is not important; parsing is what we must optimize! T -- A program should be written to model the concepts of the task it performs rather than the physical world or a process because this maximizes the potential for it to be applied to tasks that are conceptually similar and, more important, to tasks that have not yet been conceived. -- Michael B. Allen
Jun 07
prev sibling parent reply Dominikus Dittes Scherkl <dominikus scherkl.de> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 21:18:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
 Ozan wrote:

 On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 09:44:55 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is 
 not higher in the rating...

 https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune
Same for me. I used a lot of Java (Jetty, Tomcat) and Groovy (Grails) stuff before using D (vibe.d). On my machine I got a factor of 10-50 in difference. Vibe.d was always much faster. So where are the results coming from?
most of it came from microbenchmarking. "how fast can we parse json and query db?" wow, what a great benchmark! surely, we don't need to do any data processing, let's measure raw speed of parsing data, and then throwing it away!
Wow. Answer was actually visible before the OP. THAT is what I would call fast. Did you use vibe.d?
Jun 08
parent reply =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:
On 06/08/2017 05:09 AM, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote:

 Wow. Answer was actually visible before the OP. THAT is what I would
 call fast. Did you use vibe.d?
Your answer hasn't arrived yet. Using something other than vibe.d? :p Ali
Jun 08
parent Elvis Zhou <elvis.x.zhou gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 June 2017 at 15:40:37 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 06/08/2017 05:09 AM, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote:

 Wow. Answer was actually visible before the OP. THAT is what
I would
 call fast. Did you use vibe.d?
Your answer hasn't arrived yet. Using something other than vibe.d? :p Ali
lol, your answer did arrive before OP.
Jun 09
prev sibling parent =?UTF-8?Q?S=c3=b6nke_Ludwig?= <sludwig outerproduct.org> writes:
Am 07.06.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Ali Çehreli:
 Is there an issue with the tests? Surprised that vibe.d is not higher in 
 the rating...
 
 
 https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=fortune
 
 Ali
There are thread scaling issues in the tested version. The test setup there uses a 40 core server (plus hyper threading), so this cripples the results. I've fixed a few issues in the latest betas, but I can't say for sure if those were the only ones, because my tests were only on a 2-core i7 (it scales like it should there now). They introduced "continuous benchmarking" with more frequent preview results now, which should hopefully make fixing this more realistic for the next round.
Jun 09