Replace unsubstantiated performance claims with real benchmark numbers - #21
Merged
Merged
Conversation
What: the docs site's "Performance" section and PostPyro_documentation.md's Performance Notes previously implied PostPyro is faster than asyncpg/ psycopg (star ratings in the original page, unqualified "why PostPyro is faster" framing) without any measurement behind it. Ran benchmarks/bench_vs_alternatives.py against a live Postgres 16 and replaced the claims with the actual numbers: | Benchmark | PostPyro | asyncpg | psycopg3 | |-------------------------------|---------:|--------:|---------:| | Round trip (200x SELECT 1) | 29.86ms| 20.74ms| 17.19ms| | Bulk insert (1,000 rows) | 4304.05ms|4475.53ms| 4171.60ms| | Transaction (4 statements) | 8.90ms| 4.85ms| 4.13ms| | Concurrency (20 tasks) | 2.81ms| 1.16ms| 3.91ms| Read plainly: PostPyro is currently slower on round-trips and transactions, roughly on par on bulk inserts, mixed on concurrency - not a "PostPyro is faster" story. No optimization pass has happened yet on the async rewrite; correctness and API stability came first. Both docs keep the caveat that this is one machine, one point in time, and link to benchmarks/README.md to reproduce it. Also softened the "Rust backend" reason card, which implied an advantage over asyncpg/psycopg3 specifically from avoiding Python interpreter overhead - both of those are also compiled (Cython/C), so that framing was misleading in a driver-comparison context even though the underlying fact (Rust, not Python) is true.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 37 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
This branch was successfully deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
PostPyro_documentation.md's Performance Notes) implied PostPyro is faster than asyncpg/psycopg without any measurement behind it. Ranbenchmarks/bench_vs_alternatives.pyagainst a live Postgres 16 and replaced the claims with the real numbers.benchmarks/README.mdso anyone can reproduce it themselves.Test plan
docs/locally, screenshotted the Performance section to confirm the new table renders correctlydocs/index.htmlandPostPyro_documentation.md- no code touched