Yeeted numbers from performance bench

README.md

@@ -103,115 +103,13 @@ some benchmarks as well as the test suite used to validate the behavior of the q
 4. I was bored during my programming class
 
 
-## Performance metrics
-------------------------------------------
-
-To outline just how much faster a deque is than a regular dynamic array when doing insertion and popping
-near the ends, here are some performance metrics I took on my laptop with an 8-core Ryzen 7 4700U.
-
-Both collections have been filled with 500000 elements and the time taken for each operation has been
-recorded. The average, minimum and maximum time taken are shown here, as well as the standard deviation
-for each micro-benchmark.
-
-
-## Appending at the end
-
-### LinkedDeque
-
-Time taken: `0.325591755` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `0.0`
-  - max:   `0.010444388`
-  - avg:   `3.415999800000153e-07`
-  - stdev: `1.643969031599315e-05`
-
-### seq
-
-Time taken: `0.283606824` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `2.499999999239222e-07`
-  - max:   `0.001853333999999984`
-  - avg:   `2.750403260000028e-07`
-  - stdev: `3.929418946682074e-06`
-
-## Popping the head
-
-### LinkedDeque
-
-Time taken: `0.008184640000000076` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `2.499999999239222e-07`
-  - max:   `1.186499999994428e-05`
-  - avg:   `2.64712133333553e-07`
-  - stdev: `9.675646231323721e-08`
-
-### seq
-
-Time taken: `2.3356288` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `0.0001166700000001519`
-  - max:   `0.002396426000000229`
-  - avg:   `0.0001549421693333322`
-  - stdev: `8.55174518472766e-05`
-
-## Adding at the left side
-
-### LinkedDeque
-
-Time taken: `0.3028111230000001` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `2.699999996913505e-07`
-  - max:   `0.01986077199999992`
-  - avg:   `3.19837340000251e-07`
-  - stdev: `2.808711098829249e-05`
-
-### seq
-
-Time taken: `23.515489255` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `2.700000001354397e-07`
-  - max:   `0.002371210999999818`
-  - avg:   `4.657242209800181e-05`
-  - stdev: `3.14827288610087e-05`
-
-## Random access (10000 times)
-
-### LinkedDeque
-
-Time taken: `8.208724628999995` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `9.920000003660334e-07`
-  - max:   `0.002548661999998814`
-  - avg:   `0.0008192961785821358`
-  - stdev: `0.0004795569727666707`
-
-### seq
-
-Time taken: `0.00333773400000581` seconds. Results:
-
-  - min:   `1.599999990276046e-07`
-  - max:   `9.759999997527302e-06`
-  - avg:   `1.632506749111258e-07`
-  - stdev: `9.612951140246536e-08`
-
-## Popping the tail
-
-### LinkedDeque
-
-Time taken: `0.004907793000000993` seconds. Results:
-  - min:   `1.499999982002009e-07`
-  - max:   '8.515999994074264e-06`
-  - avg:   `1.609196000041869e-07`
-  - stdev: `9.069790474947947e-08`
-
-### seq
-
-Time taken: `0.004914629999994702` seconds. Results:
-  - min:   `1.499999982002009e-07`
-  - max:   `6.697999999971671e-06`
-  - avg:   `1.62365333385613e-07`
-  - stdev: `5.410771724203826e-08`
+## Performance against a regular seq
 
+Most people probably know that a data structure optimized for access towards both ends will be several times more efficient
+than a general purpose container. The performance difference between a regular dynamic array like Nim's `seq` type is very
+noticeable: `LinkedDeque` is anywhere from 30 to 2913 times faster at operating near the ends, depending on the platform and
+compiler (compiled with `-d:release` or higher). The usual expected speedup lies anywhere from 30 to ~400-500 times faster than
+a `seq`, especially if many operations are done sequentially.
 
 ## TODOs
 

bench/linked.nim

@@ -175,10 +175,9 @@ when isMainModule:
        - max: {st.max}
        - avg: {st.mean()}
        - stdev: {st.standardDeviation()}"""
-
     st.clear()
     t = @[]
     start = cpuTime()
     q2 = @[]
 
-    echo &"\nTotal benchmark time: {cpuTime() - benchStart}"
+    echo &"Total benchmark time: {cpuTime() - benchStart}"