Skip to content

Demo: Benchmark comparing powerwalk vs os.walk for package discovery #262

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
Peter554 wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Demo: Benchmark comparing powerwalk vs os.walk for package discovery #262

Peter554 wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@Peter554
Copy link
Collaborator

@Peter554 Peter554 commented Nov 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

A small demo showing off https://github.com/Peter554/powerwalk, for your interest/consideration @seddonym

Results from my machine:

❯ uv run benchmark_walk.py
Benchmarking package discovery
Package: octoenergy
Directory: /Users/peter.byfield/projects/kraken-core/src/octoenergy

Running warm-up and verification...
os.walk found: 65752 modules
powerwalk found: 65761 modules

WARNING: 9 modules only found by powerwalk:
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.aus.markets.electricity.meter_data_quality.interfaces.supportsite.templates.partials
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.aus.markets.gas.interfaces.supportsite.templates.support.workflows
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.aus.markets.gas.interfaces.supportsite.templates.support.workflows.partials
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.gbr.interfaces.supportsite.templates.electricity.meter-points.partials
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.nld.markets.common.interfaces.templates.support.billing.popups
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.nzl.markets.electricity.interfaces.supportsite.templates.support.industry.nzl.electricity_service_orders
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.usa.markets.ercot.interfaces.supportsite.templates.support.accounts.popovers
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.usa.markets.ercot.interfaces.supportsite.templates.support.meter_points
  octoenergy.plugins.territories.usa.markets.ercot.interfaces.supportsite.templates.support.meter_points.pop_ups

============================================================
Running 10 iterations each...

os.walk run 1: 0.6553s
os.walk run 2: 0.7320s
os.walk run 3: 0.6544s
os.walk run 4: 0.7183s
os.walk run 5: 0.6345s
os.walk run 6: 0.7121s
os.walk run 7: 0.6500s
os.walk run 8: 0.6373s
os.walk run 9: 0.6999s
os.walk run 10: 0.6314s

powerwalk run 1: 0.4323s
powerwalk run 2: 0.3870s
powerwalk run 3: 0.4518s
powerwalk run 4: 0.3668s
powerwalk run 5: 0.4795s
powerwalk run 6: 0.3750s
powerwalk run 7: 0.4738s
powerwalk run 8: 0.3699s
powerwalk run 9: 0.4691s
powerwalk run 10: 0.4032s

============================================================
Results:
============================================================

os.walk:
  Average: 0.6725s
  Min:     0.6314s
  Max:     0.7320s

powerwalk:
  Average: 0.4208s
  Min:     0.3668s
  Max:     0.4795s

Speedup: 1.60x
✓ powerwalk is 1.60x faster

@Peter554 Peter554 self-assigned this Nov 9, 2025
@Peter554 Peter554 changed the title Add benchmark comparing speedywalk vs os.walk for package discovery Demo benchmark comparing speedywalk vs os.walk for package discovery Nov 9, 2025
@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Nov 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #262 will not alter performance

Comparing Peter554:speedywalk-demo (af5c383) with main (558e62c)

Summary

✅ 26 untouched
⏩ 23 skipped1

Footnotes

  1. 23 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. ↩

@Peter554 Peter554 changed the title Demo benchmark comparing speedywalk vs os.walk for package discovery Demo benchmark comparing powerwalk vs os.walk for package discovery Nov 9, 2025
@Peter554 Peter554 changed the title Demo benchmark comparing powerwalk vs os.walk for package discovery Demo: Benchmark comparing powerwalk vs os.walk for package discovery Nov 10, 2025
@seddonym
Copy link
Collaborator

seddonym commented Nov 10, 2025

Thanks for sharing!

I like the look of powerwalk, nice idea. I tried switching to the PowerWalkModuleFinder and trying it out building a large package locally - it does seem to be a bit faster, but it's somewhat marginal - maybe 3.2s -> 2.9s. I wonder what's going on there.

I'd be open to including something like this in theory, though given only the slight improvement it might be better to concentrate on the other PR...what do you think?

@Peter554
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Peter554 commented Nov 10, 2025

Thanks for sharing!

I like the look of powerwalk, nice idea. I tried switching to the PowerWalkModuleFinder and trying it out building a large package locally - it does seem to be a bit faster, but it's somewhat marginal - maybe 3.2s -> 2.9s. I wonder what's going on there.

I'd be open to including something like this in theory, though given only the slight improvement it might be better to concentrate on the other PR...what do you think?

Thanks for taking a look. Yes I think likely the other PR is a better direction. But this one was still fun for me at least.

@Peter554
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Peter554 commented Nov 11, 2025

Closing this PR since I think #263 is more useful

@Peter554 Peter554 closed this Nov 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@Peter554 Peter554

Labels

don't merge

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@Peter554 @seddonym