bench: remove the random-index FSL take benchmarks - #10010
Performance Gate Passed
⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected
Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.
For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.
⚠️ 3 benchmarks measured no execution time
Nothing ran under measurement, usually because the compiler removed the code under test. These results are not comparable, so they count as unchanged.
⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
✅ 2174 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 385 skipped benchmarks1
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ | Simulation | take_fsl_f16_force_per_index[256, 10] |
56.8 µs | 38.7 µs | +46.74% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | filtered_owned_i64_avx512[OneNullInEight] |
26.1 µs | 23 µs | +13.39% |
| Simulation | fixed_16_advancing_ptr_safe[100] |
< 1 ns | < 1 ns | N/A | |
| Simulation | preverify_advancing_ptr_unchecked[1000] |
< 1 ns | < 1 ns | N/A | |
| Simulation | preverify_advancing_ptr_unchecked[10000] |
< 1 ns | < 1 ns | N/A |
Tip
Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing ct/beautiful-maxwell-7eyyvp (7f434f3) with develop (9e8abca)2
Footnotes
-
385 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
develop(515e61e) during the generation of this report, so 9e8abca was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩