So I was reading the blog post and decided to test the speedup of the Stdlib excision section, % hyperfine 'julia +1.10 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"' Benchmark 1: julia +1.10 --startup-file=no -e "1+1" Time (mean ± σ): 181.7 ms ± 6.3 ms [User: 107.8 ms, System: 72.8 ms] Range (min … max)…

Is there a specific place where we can report regressions in packages? The Meshes.jl test suite on CI went from 4m (v1.10) to 6m (v1.11).

Reporting broad regressions isn’t especially useful, but if you can narrow down the regression to something specific and reproducible, absolutely report it as a Julia issue!

[image] ufechner7: Don’t complain, just continue to use 1.10. The “complaints” (I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the OP actually) are useful to me as an observer interested in how soon I should consider updating. It also sheds light on how stable I should expect new releases t…

I feel like julia startup time is just not very stable: akako@frame16 ~> hyperfine --warmup 1 'julia +1.10.5 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"' Benchmark 1: julia +1.10.5 --startup-file=no -e "1+1" Time (mean ± σ): 141.9 ms ± 21.5 ms [User: 77.6 ms, System: 98.4 ms] Range (min … max): 110.9 …

Are you using a laptop? If you do, put it in performance mode, otherwise the results will be all over the place.

I think 1.11.0 is just all over the places: akako@frame16 ~> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/energy_performance_preference performance akako@frame16 ~> hyperfine --warmup 1 'julia +1.10.5 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"' Benchmark 1: julia +1.10.5 --startup-file=no -e "1+1" Time (mean ± σ): …

Pretty reproducible for me: ufechner@framework:~$ hyperfine 'julia +1.11 -e "1+1"' Benchmark 1: julia +1.11 -e "1+1" Time (mean ± σ): 244.9 ms ± 2.1 ms [User: 742.6 ms, System: 73.4 ms] Range (min … max): 241.7 ms … 249.3 ms 12 runs Ryzen 7840u, 8 performance cores

[image] ufechner7: 244.9 ms ± 2.1 ms we have the same CPU, so why is this time double of mine? do you have startup script? also are you sure you’re not running rc4? rc4 is stable for me: akako@frame16 ~> hyperfine --warmup 1 'julia +1.11.0-rc4 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"' Benchmark 1: jul…

I am also seeing a huge pre-compilation increase in 1.11 compared to 1.10. Julia 1.10 julia> using PrettyTables julia> A = ones(2, 2) 2×2 Matrix{Float64}: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 julia> @time pretty_table(A) ┌────────┬────────┐ │ Col. 1 │ Col. 2 │ ├────────┼────────┤ │ 1.0 │ 1.0 │ │ 1.0 │ …

Julia 1.11 is slower than 1.10?

Internals & Design

lmiq October 9, 2024, 9:13pm 19

The number of allocations, if the performance does not decrease, is not necessarily an issue. Some of this was discussed here: Increase in allocations with Julia v1.11-beta

Topic		Replies	Views
Julia 1.11 beta high latency Internals & Design	25	3050	September 17, 2024
Startup time of 1000 packages – 53% slower in Julia 1.12 vs 1.10 Internals & Design performance , ttfx , latency	81	6341	November 14, 2025
Slower times to TTFX for GMT in 1.11 and even more in nightly General Usage ttfx	6	449	March 25, 2025
Compile time slowdown from 1.1 to 1.2 Internals & Design	12	2199	November 27, 2019
PackageCompiler hangs while compiling nonincremental system image on Julia v1.11 General Usage	53	1528	April 23, 2025

Julia 1.11 is slower than 1.10?

Related topics