Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#2Performance comparisons are made against go sync.Map, with cmapv2 on par or sometimes exceeding is on different workloads. It is both lock-free and thread safe, using atomic operations. It also supports sharding out of the box. cmapv2 with 10m k/v pairs where keys and values are 64bytes was able to achieve 1.5m w/s and 3m r/s.
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#3Performance comparisons are made against go sync.Map, with cmapv2 on par or sometimes exceeding is on different workloads. It is both lock-free and thread safe, using atomic operations. It also supports sharding out of the box. cmapv2 with 10m k/v pairs where keys and values are 64bytes was able to achieve 1.5m w/s and 3m r/s.
Looks interesting, it would be nice to have the performance comparisons front and center on the readme.
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#4Is it anywhere close to swisstables?
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#5Performance comparisons are made against go sync.Map, with cmapv2 on par or sometimes exceeding is on different workloads. It is both lock-free and thread safe, using atomic operations. It also supports sharding out of the box. cmapv2 with 10m k/v pairs where keys and values are 64bytes was able to achieve 1.5m w/s and 3m r/s.
I've been using this one for years, can you do comparisons against it?
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#6Is it anywhere close to swisstables?
No because swisstables generally don't do concurrency (i.e. concurrency ==> atomics which are inherently more expensive due to HW reasons).
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#7Performance comparisons are made against go sync.Map, with cmapv2 on par or sometimes exceeding is on different workloads. It is both lock-free and thread safe, using atomic operations. It also supports sharding out of the box. cmapv2 with 10m k/v pairs where keys and values are 64bytes was able to achieve 1.5m w/s and 3m r/s.
I've been using this one for years, can you do comparisons against it? https://github.com/cornelk/hashmap
Another good comparison would be against https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/puzpuzpuz/xsync/v3#Map
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#8Performance comparisons are made against go sync.Map, with cmapv2 on par or sometimes exceeding is on different workloads. It is both lock-free and thread safe, using atomic operations. It also supports sharding out of the box. cmapv2 with 10m k/v pairs where keys and values are 64bytes was able to achieve 1.5m w/s and 3m r/s.
I've been using this one for years, can you do comparisons against it? https://github.com/cornelk/hashmap
yes I can take a look, thanks for passing that along
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using this one for years, can you do comparisons against it? https://github.com/cornelk/hashmap
Another good comparison would be against https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/puzpuzpuz/xsync/v3#Map
definitely, I can expand my comparisons and benchmarks
Re: Cmapv2: A high performance, concurrent map
#10Performance comparisons are made against go sync.Map, with cmapv2 on par or sometimes exceeding is on different workloads. It is both lock-free and thread safe, using atomic operations. It also supports sharding out of the box. cmapv2 with 10m k/v pairs where keys and values are 64bytes was able to achieve 1.5m w/s and 3m r/s.
Looks interesting, it would be nice to have the performance comparisons front and center on the readme.
sounds good, they are a bit hidden right now. also am most likely going to update the other docs.