Why is spawning a new process per benchmark more accurate?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 962
- Forks
- 106
- Avg merge
- 2d 18h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
I stumpled upon an explanation of the differences between timeit and pyperf here: https://pyperf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cli.html#timeit-versus-pyperf-timeit
I am wondering why spawning a new process to benchmark is better?
Edit: I assume this has something to do with it? https://vstinner.github.io/journey-to-stable-benchmark-average.html
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the linked pyperf documentation section on timeit versus pyperf and the referenced article about stable benchmark averages. Determine what explanation is missing about process isolation, then update the relevant documentation so the accuracy rationale is clear and the links remain useful. Done means a reader can understand the trade-off without needing to ask this question.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- documentation, performance
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100