-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Add benchmarking as test #146
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #146 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.08% 79.62% -0.46%
==========================================
Files 21 21
Lines 1968 1978 +10
==========================================
- Hits 1576 1575 -1
- Misses 392 403 +11 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
on my laptop (i7-9750h)
|
Thanks, @sunxd3 -- these look reasonable. There are a few models which take longer time, e.g. Do you understand why? In addition, how do these numbers compare to |
I have some guesses, but need to look deeper into it.
I don't have a way to measure, but it is quite fast (under a second). I'll need to ask Andrew for a way to do the benchmark. |
It sounds good to get some comparison numbers of compiler efficiency per step (e.g., those above) and also log density and Gibbs conditional density evaluation speed. |
No description provided.