You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
ref #29165 the stat_ops benchmarks add a significant amount of time to the ASV runs. The "kendall" correlation method in particular takes over 10 seconds per run in some cases, and there are at least 4 occurrences of this. So for that method alone 40s across 4 runs per benchmark suite would be close to 3 minutes just for those benchmarks
There are a few others mixed in there as well that can be tuned. I think a .2 ms runtime would be ideal:
Of course making that method faster to be in line with the rest of the correlation methods is an option as well and this is mentioned by @dsaxton in #28329. Depending on how much effort that is might be OK to move the benchmark first and align back if ever improved
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello! I would like to work on this. I understand that we can change the number of times it is called in the asv setup, but I am not really sure what you mean by moving the benchmark?
Sorry for the extra trouble. I am really new at this.
kendall is much slower than all of the other methods, so it might make sense to break that off from the parametrization if it makes the runtime more reasonable, at least until the performance of it gets improved
ref #29165 the stat_ops benchmarks add a significant amount of time to the ASV runs. The "kendall" correlation method in particular takes over 10 seconds per run in some cases, and there are at least 4 occurrences of this. So for that method alone 40s across 4 runs per benchmark suite would be close to 3 minutes just for those benchmarks
There are a few others mixed in there as well that can be tuned. I think a .2 ms runtime would be ideal:
https://pandas.pydata.org/speed/pandas/#summarylist?sort=1&dir=desc
Of course making that method faster to be in line with the rest of the correlation methods is an option as well and this is mentioned by @dsaxton in #28329. Depending on how much effort that is might be OK to move the benchmark first and align back if ever improved
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: