# How do I interpret Dagger.jl benchmark results?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-do-i-interpret-dagger-jl-benchmark-results/104877>\
**Category:** Julia at Scale\
**Tags:** question, package\
**Created:** [October 11, 2023, 9:38pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-do-i-interpret-dagger-jl-benchmark-results/104877 "2023-10-11T21:38:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![schnetter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/schnetter/32/45_2.png) [@schnetter](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/schnetter)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2023, 9:38pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-do-i-interpret-dagger-jl-benchmark-results/104877/1 "2023-10-11T21:38:28Z")

</div>

I wanted to understand the performance of Dagger.jl on my laptop and ran its benchmarks there, as described in the documentation. I ran with 1 process and 8 threads (on 8 cores). This produced this output:

```julia
benchmark results for suite nmf, exec dagger, accels String[]: 10-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
  tags: []
  "NNMF scaled by: 16" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(2.737 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 41" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(1.236 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 36" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(634.934 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 1" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(315.710 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 26" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(1.366 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 31" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(1.308 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 21" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(1.250 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 46" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(664.206 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 11" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(2.396 s)
  "NNMF scaled by: 6" => 1-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
	  tags: []
	  "Workers: 1" => TrialEstimate(8.410 s)
benchmark results for suite nmf, exec raw, accels String[]: 10-element BenchmarkTools.BenchmarkGroup:
  tags: []
  "NNMF scaled by: 16" => TrialEstimate(228.647 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 41" => TrialEstimate(621.973 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 36" => TrialEstimate(502.466 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 1" => TrialEstimate(15.768 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 26" => TrialEstimate(410.510 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 31" => TrialEstimate(476.929 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 21" => TrialEstimate(346.264 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 46" => TrialEstimate(695.892 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 11" => TrialEstimate(183.921 ms)
  "NNMF scaled by: 6" => TrialEstimate(92.942 ms)
Done!

```

What does this mean? Is the “scaled by” the problem size? Or should I scale the resulting times by that factor before comparing? What is a “TrialEstimate” – presumably the time it took to run the benchmark in that configuration? It’s suspicious that the “dagger” times are ten times higher than the “raw” times…