Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Benchmarks and performance data? #2

Open
mbertschler opened this issue Nov 11, 2016 · 17 comments
Open

Benchmarks and performance data? #2

mbertschler opened this issue Nov 11, 2016 · 17 comments
Labels

Comments

@mbertschler
Copy link

On average 6-7 times faster than otto. Also uses considerably less memory.

What benchmark code did you use for this, and what were the exact results?

Nice work so far :)

@dop251
Copy link
Owner

dop251 commented Nov 11, 2016

I used octane 2.0, some of the long running tc39 tests (specifically this and this).

Haven't had time to prepare the results in a publishable form, sorry.

@ohenepee
Copy link

Still haven't had the time to prepare results? Would really love to see how it stacks up against Otto and V8... how much slow it is at least compared to V8 in simple tests.

@sokolovstas
Copy link

sokolovstas commented Dec 29, 2017

otto parallel test
otto parallel thread : 33.652262738s

goja parallel test
goja parallel thread : 10.559833574s

benchmark otto

Box2D 89.3
Crypto 18.1
DeltaBlue 18.5
EarleyBoyer 70
NavierStokes 29.6
RayTrace 56.1
Richards 20.5
Splay 129
SplayLatency 627

benchmark goja

Box2D 509
Crypto 87.8
DeltaBlue 227
EarleyBoyer 471
NavierStokes 184
RayTrace 254
Richards 188
Splay 921
SplayLatency 4193

https://github.com/sokolovstas/fun/tree/master/go_javascript

@aidansteele
Copy link

How does it compare to Duktape wrappers, e.g. go-duktape?

@kirillDanshin
Copy link

@aidansteele it should be pretty interesting 'cause cgo adds 100ns overhead on each call

@tamasfe
Copy link

tamasfe commented Oct 2, 2018

If anyone's still wondering, I ran a quick test just out of curiosity about how "go" javascript engine implementations compare.

I ran the following code a couple times:

function factorial(n) {
    return n === 1 ? n : n * factorial(--n);
}

var i = 0;

while (i++ < 1e6) {
    factorial(10);
}

The execution times roughly were:
otto: 33.195s
goja: 3.937s
duktape: 1.545s
v8 (go binding): 0.309s
v8 native (d8): 0.187s

It definitely isn't a real benchmark, and you won't really see the above lines in a real javascript code (well unless you need to calculate 10! 10^6 times for some reason 😄 ), but it should give an idea.

@tisba
Copy link

tisba commented Jan 23, 2019

@tamasf97 out of curiosity, which v8 go binding package did you use? It's quite hard to find bindings that are not outdated/abandoned…

@tamasfe
Copy link

tamasfe commented Jan 24, 2019

@tisba I don't have any of these anymore, but I'm almost certain it was this https://github.com/augustoroman/v8 . At least I remember the installation steps mentioning getting a compiled v8 from a ruby gem. Right now I don't believe there's any "proper" v8 binding around, as almost no one is interested enough in using v8 with Go from what I've seen.

@tisba
Copy link

tisba commented Jan 29, 2019

That's too bad :( Efficient scripting support for a "static" language like Go is really nice and useful. Although I'm quite new to the ecosystem, my observation is quite similar (many, apparently abandoned projects).

@Julio-Guerra
Copy link

Julio-Guerra commented Mar 6, 2020

About "goroutine safety", is it due to a JS implementation constraint? I don't understand why every JS VM has this and cannot be used concurrently using distinct execution contexts.

@dop251
Copy link
Owner

dop251 commented Mar 6, 2020

Currently Runtime is the execution context. It has an associated VM which has stacks and other associated state, there is no way a VM could be used concurrently. Another issue is that all Object values are backed by go maps which are also not goroutine-safe. Hope that explains.

@dop251
Copy link
Owner

dop251 commented Mar 6, 2020

Besides, even if above problems were somehow solved, ECMAScript is designed to be single-threaded, there is no synchronisation mechanism and most built-in functions would break if there were concurrent modifications.

@marcsantiago
Copy link

A thought on this, couldn't the maps be mutex guarded or sync.Maps internally. Likewise, wouldn't it be possible to provide a Reset method to reset the internal state and allow the user to guard the usage with mutexes like other Go standard lib packages?

@mei-rune
Copy link

goroutine safety is unnecessary, but context support is significant. #243

tsedgwick pushed a commit to tsedgwick/goja that referenced this issue Feb 15, 2021
* REALMC-7452 implement memory usage
tsedgwick pushed a commit to tsedgwick/goja that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2021
* REALMC-7452 implement memory usage
@kevburnsjr
Copy link

kevburnsjr commented Mar 2, 2021

I ran a quick test just out of curiosity about how "go" javascript engine implementations compare....

I think you'd get very different results if you ran a small script 100,000 times rather than running a big script 1 time:

function factorial(n) {
    return n === 1 ? n : n * factorial(--n);
}

var i = 0;

while (i++ < 10) {
    factorial(10);
}

tsedgwick pushed a commit to tsedgwick/goja that referenced this issue May 5, 2021
* REALMC-7452 implement memory usage
mstoykov added a commit to mstoykov/goja that referenced this issue Jul 1, 2021
* drop command pattern in debugger as it's not very useful
* Drop Result in debugger
* Unexport StringToLines
panzhongxian pushed a commit to panzhongxian/goja that referenced this issue Dec 7, 2021
* drop command pattern in debugger as it's not very useful
* Drop Result in debugger
* Unexport StringToLines
@bep
Copy link

bep commented Dec 27, 2022

I have done some benchmarking today on the effect of reusing *goa.Program and pooling VMs here:

https://github.com/bep/gojap

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

14 participants