hhhizzz opened a new issue, #483:
URL: https://github.com/apache/paimon-rust/issues/483

   ### Search before asking
   
   - [x] I searched in the 
[issues](https://github.com/apache/paimon-rust/issues) and found nothing 
similar.
   
   
   ### Motivation
   
   ### Description
   
   Currently, `paimon-rust` does not seem to have a reusable benchmark harness, 
such as `cargo bench` targets or a benchmark dev-dependency like Criterion.
   
   I searched existing issues and did not find a general issue for introducing 
benchmark infrastructure. There are several performance-sensitive changes or 
discussions where benchmark evidence would be useful:
   
   - #281 included ad-hoc “Benchmark for TableScan” results in the PR 
description.
   - #230 improved Parquet reader performance.
   - #217 added statistics for DataFusion scan to improve query performance.
   - #378 mentions future performance benchmarks for Mosaic after read 
compatibility becomes stable.
   
   These examples suggest that benchmarks would help reviewers and contributors 
evaluate performance-sensitive PRs more consistently. However, without a 
reusable benchmark setup, performance comparisons are hard to reproduce and are 
usually left as one-off measurements in PR descriptions.
   
   Would the project be open to adding a benchmark dependency and an initial 
set of `cargo bench` benchmarks?
   
   This would not need to define final project-wide benchmark policy 
immediately. It could start as a small, reproducible benchmark harness and 
evolve as more performance-sensitive areas need coverage.
   
   
   ### Solution
   
   _No response_
   
   ### Anything else?
   
   _No response_
   
   ### Willingness to contribute
   
   - [x] I'm willing to submit a PR!


-- 
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