diff options
| author | Harel Ben-Attia <harelba@gmail.com> | 2018-12-16 17:51:56 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Harel Ben-Attia <harelba@gmail.com> | 2018-12-16 17:51:56 +0200 |
| commit | 7291a3f3a8465e0ae2a912cd7d1cdd882d3e97f3 (patch) | |
| tree | 0b3f55f088171059dca00685d80699413de6123f | |
| parent | f8051d1014c29e994449b8159f78e29079506c64 (diff) | |
wip
| -rw-r--r-- | test/BENCHMARK.md | 2 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/test/BENCHMARK.md b/test/BENCHMARK.md index 639db01..44aeee2 100644 --- a/test/BENCHMARK.md +++ b/test/BENCHMARK.md @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This is an initial version of the benchmark, along with some results. The follow * q running on python 3.6.4 * textql 2.0.3 +The q version used for the benchmark is still on the python2/3 compatibility branch (hash f0b62b15b91583cd944ea2e8daf6f730198959fa) + This is by no means a scientific benchmark, and it only focuses on the data loading time. Also, it does not try to provide any usability comparison between q and textql. Actually, I've created this benchmark in order to compare q over python 2 and 3, and only then decided it would be nice to add a similar comparison to textql. ## Methodology |