<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Benchmarking on Bits, Trades &amp; Systems</title>
    <link>https://blog.turboawesome.win/tags/benchmarking/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Benchmarking on Bits, Trades &amp; Systems</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:29:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.turboawesome.win/tags/benchmarking/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Go Benchmarks: Writing Ones That Actually Tell You Something</title>
      <link>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2020/03/go-benchmarks-writing-ones-that-actually-tell-you-something/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2020/03/go-benchmarks-writing-ones-that-actually-tell-you-something/</guid>
      <description>Go&amp;#39;s built-in benchmark framework is excellent, but it&amp;#39;s easy to write benchmarks that measure the wrong thing — compiler optimisations, cache warming artifacts, or benchmark overhead rather than the code under test.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Benchmarking Without Lying: JMH, Coordinated Omission, and Honest Numbers</title>
      <link>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2014/10/benchmarking-without-lying-jmh-coordinated-omission-and-honest-numbers/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2014/10/benchmarking-without-lying-jmh-coordinated-omission-and-honest-numbers/</guid>
      <description>Most latency benchmarks are wrong in the same ways. JMH solves the JVM measurement problems; coordinated omission is the harder issue that lives above it.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparing ArrayBlockingQueue to the Disruptor: Numbers Don&#39;t Lie</title>
      <link>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2013/05/comparing-arrayblockingqueue-to-the-disruptor-numbers-dont-lie/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 13:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2013/05/comparing-arrayblockingqueue-to-the-disruptor-numbers-dont-lie/</guid>
      <description>A direct benchmark comparison between Java&amp;#39;s ArrayBlockingQueue and the LMAX Disruptor at various producer/consumer configurations. What the numbers show and why.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
