minhajuddin

minhajuddin

I did a quick benchmark of lookup time for map vs ets as I am working with a lot of ETL stuff. ets is very convenient as you can communicate with it from other processes just by using named tables. And the performance difference between these doesn’t seem huge (lookup times for ets is 1 to 2x of map lookup times).

Here are the logs for your perusal. The benchmarking code can be found at GitHub - minhajuddin/lookup_bench · GitHub . Would love to hear your thoughts :slight_smile:

In the log, the first number is the number of records in the map/ets table and the second number is the number of lookups, so ‘ets_1000_100’ means it has 1000 records in the ets table and we are performing 100 lookups

There is a bug in the code which incorrectly reports the number of lookups when the size of the map/ets table is less than the number of keys, in this scenario the number of lookups is actually equal to the number of keys in the map/ets table

15:05:09.922 [debug] starting benchmark

15:05:09.922 [debug] loading data
Erlang/OTP 19 [erts-8.2] [source-fbd2db2] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
Elixir 1.4.0
Benchmark suite executing with the following configuration:
warmup: 2.0s
time: 5.0s
parallel: 1
inputs: none specified
Estimated total run time: 14.0s

Benchmarking ets_100_100...
Benchmarking map_100_100...

Name                  ips        average  deviation         median
map_100_100      100.55 K        9.95 μs    ±44.35%       10.00 μs
ets_100_100       52.12 K       19.19 μs    ±57.85%       17.00 μs

Comparison:
map_100_100      100.55 K
ets_100_100       52.12 K - 1.93x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_100_1000...
Benchmarking map_100_1000...

Name                   ips        average  deviation         median
map_100_1000       99.89 K       10.01 μs    ±42.19%       10.00 μs
ets_100_1000       52.50 K       19.05 μs    ±55.80%       17.00 μs

Comparison:
map_100_1000       99.89 K
ets_100_1000       52.50 K - 1.90x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_100_10000...
Benchmarking map_100_10000...

Name                    ips        average  deviation         median
map_100_10000      100.04 K       10.00 μs    ±40.33%       10.00 μs
ets_100_10000       52.72 K       18.97 μs    ±56.81%       17.00 μs

Comparison:
map_100_10000      100.04 K
ets_100_10000       52.72 K - 1.90x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_1000_100...
Benchmarking map_1000_100...

Name                   ips        average  deviation         median
map_1000_100       85.03 K       11.76 μs    ±51.86%       11.00 μs
ets_1000_100       45.03 K       22.21 μs    ±44.35%       20.00 μs

Comparison:
map_1000_100       85.03 K
ets_1000_100       45.03 K - 1.89x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_1000_1000...
Benchmarking map_1000_1000...

Name                    ips        average  deviation         median
map_1000_1000        8.58 K      116.58 μs    ±12.33%      110.00 μs
ets_1000_1000        3.93 K      254.60 μs    ±14.07%      247.00 μs

Comparison:
map_1000_1000        8.58 K
ets_1000_1000        3.93 K - 2.18x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_1000_10000...
Benchmarking map_1000_10000...

Name                     ips        average  deviation         median
map_1000_10000        8.74 K      114.38 μs    ±11.29%      108.00 μs
ets_1000_10000        3.94 K      253.52 μs    ±14.61%      247.00 μs

Comparison:
map_1000_10000        8.74 K
ets_1000_10000        3.94 K - 2.22x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_10000_100...
Benchmarking map_10000_100...

Name                    ips        average  deviation         median
map_10000_100       72.80 K       13.74 μs   ±102.80%       13.00 μs
ets_10000_100       41.67 K       24.00 μs    ±39.73%       22.00 μs

Comparison:
map_10000_100       72.80 K
ets_10000_100       41.67 K - 1.75x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_10000_1000...
Benchmarking map_10000_1000...

Name                     ips        average  deviation         median
map_10000_1000        5.89 K      169.64 μs    ±31.67%      151.00 μs
ets_10000_1000        3.04 K      329.03 μs    ±14.20%      322.00 μs

Comparison:
map_10000_1000        5.89 K
ets_10000_1000        3.04 K - 1.94x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_10000_10000...
Benchmarking map_10000_10000...

Name                      ips        average  deviation         median
map_10000_10000        583.12        1.71 ms    ±26.31%        1.48 ms
ets_10000_10000        269.62        3.71 ms    ±33.27%        3.04 ms

Comparison:
map_10000_10000        583.12
ets_10000_10000        269.62 - 2.16x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_100000_100...
Benchmarking map_100000_100...

Name                     ips        average  deviation         median
map_100000_100       43.00 K       23.26 μs  ±1400.38%       14.00 μs
ets_100000_100       42.37 K       23.60 μs    ±39.66%       21.00 μs

Comparison:
map_100000_100       43.00 K
ets_100000_100       42.37 K - 1.01x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_100000_1000...
Benchmarking map_100000_1000...

Name                      ips        average  deviation         median
map_100000_1000        3.01 K      332.13 μs   ±323.60%      210.00 μs
ets_100000_1000        2.75 K      363.27 μs    ±15.39%      355.00 μs

Comparison:
map_100000_1000        3.01 K
ets_100000_1000        2.75 K - 1.09x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_100000_10000...
Benchmarking map_100000_10000...

Name                       ips        average  deviation         median
map_100000_10000        232.37        4.30 ms    ±66.78%        3.48 ms
ets_100000_10000        149.05        6.71 ms    ±33.43%        5.88 ms

Comparison:
map_100000_10000        232.37
ets_100000_10000        149.05 - 1.56x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_1000000_100...
Benchmarking map_1000000_100...

Name                      ips        average  deviation         median
map_1000000_100       39.71 K       25.18 μs  ±4145.59%       15.00 μs
ets_1000000_100       36.51 K       27.39 μs   ±107.98%       23.00 μs

Comparison:
map_1000000_100       39.71 K
ets_1000000_100       36.51 K - 1.09x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_1000000_1000...
Benchmarking map_1000000_1000...

Name                       ips        average  deviation         median
map_1000000_1000        2.88 K      347.20 μs   ±953.55%      251.00 μs
ets_1000000_1000        2.42 K      413.69 μs    ±21.88%      401.00 μs

Comparison:
map_1000000_1000        2.88 K
ets_1000000_1000        2.42 K - 1.19x slower

- - -

Benchmarking ets_1000000_10000...
Benchmarking map_1000000_10000...

Name                        ips        average  deviation         median
map_1000000_10000        181.11        5.52 ms   ±218.75%        4.46 ms
ets_1000000_10000        138.43        7.22 ms    ±12.59%        7.09 ms

Comparison:
map_1000000_10000        181.11
ets_1000000_10000        138.43 - 1.31x slower

Showing Posts 1 to 1

OvermindDL1

OvermindDL1

I’m actually quite impressed at just how fast ETS lookups are there. :slight_smile:

— All posts loaded —

Where Next? Top

Trending in Discussions Top

AstonJ
As the title says, please share what you’ve been up to with Elixir. Whether that’s been learning it, looking into it, making stuff with i...
2977 92995 915
New
caslu
I want to open this thread for you all to discuss and help those who really like Ash but are still hesitant to use it in a real project. ...
New
mudasobwa
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM. Welcome Cure. It has literally three kille...
New
GES233
I’m posting this in response to Jose’s recent tweet (Cr. link) : People are sleeping on Elixir for a coding harness: Hot-code swappi...
New
_mfierro
Hello, I wrote Stop My Hand, a Scattergories-like web application using Phoenix/LiveView as my learning project for Elixir (after readin...
New
marciol
It would be helpful to have a list of companies worldwide that hire engineers without prior experience in Elixir. Often, it can be quite ...
New
durvia
Anyone running long-lived stateful processes on BEAM? We’re building an AI agent runtime and would love to compare notes. We’re a small ...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

garrison
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language. Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
marciok
Hi there! We created Gust: A task orchestrator inspired by Airflow. For those who have never heard about Aiflow, it’s a Python-based wor...
New
jimsynz
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Damirados
Hello everyone. After busy few months I am happy to announce v0.1.0 of Emerge & Solve. They are GUI (Emerge) and State management (S...
New
netoum
Corex is an accessible, unstyled UI component library for Phoenix that integrates Zag.js state machines using Vanilla JavaScript and Live...
New
wintermeyer
There are three potential reasons for members of this forum to have a look at https://vutuv.de You are tired or annoyed of LinkedIn. Yo...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews