allthingssecurity commented on PR #29374:
URL: https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/29374#issuecomment-6704489720

   JMH result, as the design asks (route with five steps, a consumer commit and 
an `InOnly` send to seda with handover; average time per message):
   
   | Build | Listener | Mean (ns/op) | 99.9% CI | Trials (3 forks each) |
   |---|---|---|---|---|
   | A: main (merge base 91e44cf13c8c) | none | 1526 | ± 39 | 5 |
   | B: this PR (4122cd3c11a4) | none | 1517 | ± 44 | 4 |
   | B: this PR | one no-op `StepListener` | 1695 | ± 47 | 4 |
   
   - **Without a listener, this PR is within noise of main** (B 1517 vs A 1526; 
the per-trial scores of A range 1488..1578 and of B 1491..1558). A class check 
confirms that B with no listener builds no wrappers.
   - **With one no-op listener** the route costs about 170 ns more per message 
(about 11%). It has 5 steps, each giving a call, a return and a callback event, 
so about 34 ns per step. That is the price of the dev-mode feature when it is 
on; it is never on by default.
   
   Settings: JMH 1.37, `avgt`, 3 forks, 5 warmup and 10 measurement iterations 
of 1 s, 1 thread, `-gc true`, 1 GB heap; JDK 21.0.11; the A, B and C trials 
interleaved in rotating order over 4 rounds, with A repeated at the end. Only 
`camel-api` and `camel-base-engine` differ between A and B; every other Camel 
module comes from the same merge-base build. This ran on a shared laptop (Apple 
M4 Pro) with background indexing, so the absolute numbers are noisy; the 
comparison is what counts.
   
   The benchmark class (`StepListenerTest` in `tests/camel-jmh`) goes to 
apache/camel-performance-tests once that repo builds against a Camel version 
with CAMEL-26688. Moving the PR out of draft now.
   
   _Claude Code on behalf of allthingssecurity_
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to