X-BeenThere: ruby-benchmark-suite@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.91.11.6 with SMTP id o6ls1191037agi.3.p; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 
	12:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.91.148.11 with SMTP id a11mr5727458ago.9.1267473986202;
        Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.91.148.11 with SMTP id a11mr5727454ago.9.1267473986027;
        Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <igo...@yahoo.com>
Received: from mail-yw0-f155.google.com (mail-yw0-f155.google.com [209.85.211.155])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si423072gxk.9.2010.03.01.12.06.26;
        Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.211.155 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of igo...@yahoo.com) client-ip=209.85.211.155;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.211.155 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of igo...@yahoo.com) smtp.mail=igo...@yahoo.com
Received: by mail-yw0-f155.google.com with SMTP id 27so4892925ywh.22
        for <ruby-benchmark-suite@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:06:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.179.13 with SMTP id b13mr164244ybf.6.1267473985988; Mon, 
	01 Mar 2010 12:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:06:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <64C7CABE-0827-42E1-B1E4-D352232A1F75@fallingsnow.net>
X-IP: 67.180.87.124
References: <55318ffd-15bd-4fb2-93de-35ad82adef3b@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com> 
	<309e18021002091257i140b244fyec9788cc35c627a5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<2d6969c0-64b5-4b8f-93c5-6c8769352011@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com> 
	<309e18021002271220w75826e42xb6c456650982d7e4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4ED502B6-EC47-49BA-A15C-34489DA220BD@fallingsnow.net> <4e40f74b-3719-4835-ba2c-f29981491850@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com> 
	<64C7CABE-0827-42E1-B1E4-D352232A1F75@fallingsnow.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) 
	Gecko/20100214 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.8,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <f604d8af-d364-4187-84e4-36c6841154ab@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming Shootout in Feb 2010
From: Isaac Gouy <igo...@yahoo.com>
To: Ruby Benchmark Suite <ruby-benchmark-suite@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Mar 1, 10:48=A0am, Evan Phoenix <e...@fallingsnow.net> wrote:
-snip-
> Presumingly the benchmark shows up as 0 iterations/sec, yes. The code cou=
ld easily been tweaked to allow for benchmarks that have generally greater =
than 1 second per iteration by increasing the time and changing the units

Rather than "eliminates the need to tune an iteration count in each
benchmark" it morphs into the need to tune the time and time units in
each benchmark.

I think for some tasks throughput benchmarks seem like a natural
representation while for others they are a weird mismatch.

We know that processing 10,000 small files probably isn't going to be
like processing a 10,000 times larger file once - but with throughput
benchmarks we suggest it is.