Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • @Robert Harvey and comingstorm: I know that microbenchmarks are great for profiling code with short execution times, and I also see how they can be very useful for unit tests. What I'm really interested in though, is whether there is a specific reason why using the same framework would not work for longer running tests. Commented Jun 25, 2012 at 22:30
  • See my updated answer. Tests that take that long to execute are generally not unit tests (integration or acceptance tests, maybe). Commented Jun 25, 2012 at 22:32
  • My guess is that TDD is the reason why the "micro" is in micro-benchmarks. If you want to try using Caliper for longer-running benchmarks instead, you can try changing the time limit and see if that's the only thing holding you back... Commented Jun 25, 2012 at 23:07
  • 1
    In other words: if you're willing to experiment a bit, I'd guess there's a good chance you can make it work -- even though your use case is probably a bit different from the one Caliper was designed for. Commented Jun 25, 2012 at 23:16
  • > to compare two join-algorithm implementations You might be interested in this paper -- 'Statistically Rigorous Java Performance Evaluation' and the JavaStats benchmarking scripts provided by the authors. Commented Sep 28, 2012 at 15:26