JET suggested performance improvements and their benchmarking #107
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I discovered mistakes in this, I might try again later |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I was trying out JET.jl on MCTS.jl. This PR addresses some of the identified issues.
To see whether the problems were real, I set up additional benchmarks using BenchmarkTools.jl. In my testing, it seems the only impactful change is from removing the
mutablekeywords from structs. The rest could be removed from this PR in good conscience.The overview of the benchmark of all the changes is below.
My benchmarking results for the notable commits and tuning parameters are at the bottom of the text.
Summary of the changes:
benchmarkfoldermutablekeyword in several placessizehintas a keyword argumentI am not 100% sure about my methodology here; I may not be using JET or BenchmarkTools correctly, or I should be testing the algorithm with different parameters. It has been some time since I made these changes, but I only got around to benchmarking them and writing this PR today.
benchres_benchmarking-8e44d82c_2024-04-03_15-03-48.json
benchres_benchmarking-029dbe5c_2024-04-03_16-19-23.json
benchres_benchmarking-672fb8a1_2024-04-03_16-22-26.json
benchres_benchmarking-942aaf97_2024-04-03_16-15-53.json
benchres_benchmarking-1602105f_2024-04-03_15-34-02.json
benchres_benchmarking-b9859ef4_2024-04-03_15-18-25.json
benchres_benchmarking-ea84a858_2024-04-03_16-10-00.json
params.json