You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Comparison diagram isn't very informative and makes pest look bad. #5
It only lists two competitors, and only one of those is in the parser family. Benchmarks against more of the common parsers like combine and lalrpop would also be useful.
Pest is the listed as the slowest solution, with barely any explanation as to how it could be better. Making excuses for why they run faster is a weak argument; highlighting Pest's strengths is a lot better.
Thanks for the raising this issue. Here's my stance on the matter: both parsers listed in the comparison offer great performance and pest's goal is not to compete with them, but merely to show how pest can offer performance in the same order of magnitude.
Now, things will be different in 3.0. I have rewritten the generator and I'm working on the optimizer with great results.
There's a nom_benchmark repository in geal/gcouprie (nom's author) github that could be used (it runs nom, pest and one or two others as far as i can remember), but it's quite outdated, and needs some work.
Otherwise, maybe we should have our own benchmark suite to keep a good tracking of pest perfs throughout time ? I'll be glad to give a hand on that front.
There's a nom_benchmark repository in geal/gcouprie (nom's author) that could be used (it runs nom, pest and one or two others as far as i can remember), but it's quite outdated, and needs some work.
Otherwise, maybe we should have our own benchmark suite to keep a good tracking of pest perfs throughout time ? I'll be glad to give a hand on that front.
Edit : https://github.com/rust-bakery/parser_benchmarks for reference
Activity
dragostis commentedon May 4, 2019
Thanks for the raising this issue. Here's my stance on the matter: both parsers listed in the comparison offer great performance and pest's goal is not to compete with them, but merely to show how pest can offer performance in the same order of magnitude.
Now, things will be different in 3.0. I have rewritten the generator and I'm working on the optimizer with great results.
tristan-f-r commentedon Mar 4, 2023
I can't find any new benchmarks on pest - is there any updated information from the performance benchmarks mentioned above?
lwandrebeck commentedon Mar 4, 2023
There's a nom_benchmark repository in geal/gcouprie (nom's author) github that could be used (it runs nom, pest and one or two others as far as i can remember), but it's quite outdated, and needs some work.
Otherwise, maybe we should have our own benchmark suite to keep a good tracking of pest perfs throughout time ? I'll be glad to give a hand on that front.
tristan-f-r commentedon Mar 4, 2023
Good idea! It'll be nice if we can get an official repo created for that.
lwandrebeck commentedon Mar 4, 2023
There's a nom_benchmark repository in geal/gcouprie (nom's author) that could be used (it runs nom, pest and one or two others as far as i can remember), but it's quite outdated, and needs some work.
Otherwise, maybe we should have our own benchmark suite to keep a good tracking of pest perfs throughout time ? I'll be glad to give a hand on that front.
Edit : https://github.com/rust-bakery/parser_benchmarks for reference
tomtau commentedon Nov 29, 2023
One more repo that's more up to date: https://github.com/rosetta-rs/parse-rosetta-rs#results
corneliusroemer commentedon Dec 24, 2023
I was about to open an issue just to realize that I had misread - 'in somewhere below' as 'somewhere in between'.
"in somewhere below" isn't really normal English I'd say so my brain misparsed and then thought the graph or text was wrong.