basenc: buffer base16 encoded output - #13885
Performance Regression: -31.56%
⚠️ Different runtime environments detected
Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.
⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 5 regressed benchmarks
✅ 341 untouched benchmarks
🆕 10 new benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Memory | b64_decode_ignore_garbage_synthetic |
12.1 KB | 36.1 KB | -66.46% |
| ❌ | Memory | b64_decode_synthetic |
12.1 KB | 36.1 KB | -66.46% |
| ❌ | Simulation | du_max_depth_balanced_tree[(6, 4, 10)] |
62.1 ms | 65.2 ms | -4.75% |
| ❌ | Simulation | du_summarize_balanced_tree[(5, 4, 10)] |
16 ms | 16.7 ms | -4.23% |
| ❌ | Simulation | numfmt_large_numbers_si[10000] |
94.7 ms | 98.1 ms | -3.4% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | complex_relative_date |
330.2 µs | 318.6 µs | +3.65% |
| 🆕 | Memory | ptx_input_references_short_lines[100000] |
N/A | 222.2 MB | N/A |
| 🆕 | Memory | ptx_long_lines[100] |
N/A | 29.5 MB | N/A |
| 🆕 | Memory | ptx_short_lines[100000] |
N/A | 240.1 MB | N/A |
| 🆕 | Memory | ptx_input_references_long_lines[1000] |
N/A | 29.1 MB | N/A |
| 🆕 | Memory | ptx_tex[10000] |
N/A | 20.6 MB | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | ptx_input_references_short_lines[100000] |
N/A | 16.2 s | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | ptx_long_lines[100] |
N/A | 1.7 s | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | ptx_short_lines[100000] |
N/A | 14 s | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | ptx_input_references_long_lines[1000] |
N/A | 2.1 s | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | ptx_tex[10000] |
N/A | 2.9 s | N/A |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing myunbin:basenc-bufwriter-32k (6196f97) with main (66cf72b)2
Footnotes
-
46 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩
-
No successful run was found on
main(e6561b5) during the generation of this report, so 66cf72b was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩