Skip to content

Update codspeed benchmark#1576

Open
collerek wants to merge 7 commits intomasterfrom
update-codspeed-benchmark
Open

Update codspeed benchmark#1576
collerek wants to merge 7 commits intomasterfrom
update-codspeed-benchmark

Conversation

@collerek
Copy link
Collaborator

@collerek collerek commented Mar 5, 2026

No description provided.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Merging this PR will create unknown performance changes

🆕 84 new benchmarks
⏩ 84 skipped benchmarks1

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
🆕 WallTime test_get_one[500] N/A 2.7 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_initializing_models_with_related_models[40] N/A 15 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_initializing_models_with_related_models[20] N/A 5.6 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_get_all_with_related_models[40] N/A 46.8 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_get_one[250] N/A 2.7 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_count[500] N/A 3 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_count[250] N/A 2.8 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_iterate[250] N/A 61.1 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_iterate[500] N/A 118.4 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_count[1000] N/A 3.4 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_get_one[1000] N/A 2.7 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_iterate[1000] N/A 243.3 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_saving_models_individually[20] N/A 150.5 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_saving_models_individually_with_related_models[40] N/A 329.9 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_get_all_with_related_models[20] N/A 23.4 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_saving_models_individually_with_related_models[10] N/A 80.5 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_get_or_none[500] N/A 2.7 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_avg[1000] N/A 2.6 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_saving_models_individually[40] N/A 316.1 ms N/A
🆕 WallTime test_get_or_none[250] N/A 2.6 ms N/A
... ... ... ... ... ...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.


Comparing update-codspeed-benchmark (9595016) with master (8340862)2

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 84 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

  2. No successful run was found on master (fa59cdf) during the generation of this report, so 8340862 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report.

@collerek collerek marked this pull request as ready for review March 5, 2026 14:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant