-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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
Make existing benchmarks more realistic #9
Comments
What if modify redux dev tools, or create some middleware (or both), to let redux customers collect and send you a real information about how they are using redux?
|
Hi, I wan't to contribute to this. How can I get started? |
@theKashey : it's an interesting idea, but it also sounds like a lot more work than we have time for (and also lots of complexities around gathering data, which I do not want to touch). @taranvohra : thanks! Tell you what - fork the project, clone the repo, and start modifying the |
@markerikson My bad, I didn't notice and went ahead to refactor |
Sure, that's fine. I left a request on the PR to switch how the actions are being dispatched - would appreciate it if you could tackle that first. After that, sure, go ahead and tackle the others. |
The
stockticker
andtwitter-lite
benchmarks currently use an array for the root of the Redux state "tree", rather than an object with multiple slices. This is rather unrealistic. Thetree-view
example at least uses an object, although it's all just a single normalized lookup table rather than multiple slices too.I'd really like it if these benchmarks were modified to separate the data into state slices. Using the
stockticker
benchmark as an example:Right now, it's a single array of
N
entries, whereN
is defined inconstants.js
. I'd like to have aNUMBER_OF_SLICES
constant that defines how many named state slices that should be split into. For example:With each of those slices having an equal number of items inside.
That way, the update patterns would be a bit more realistic - an update to
state.slice2[123]
would leave slices 1, 3, and 4 untouched.This would require:
state.slice
, then forstate.slice2
", etc)Overall, I think this would give us some more realistic results.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: