Extends the IfxPy comparison bench script with scaling workloads
(1k/10k/100k rows for both executemany and SELECT). Re-runs the
full comparison with consistent measurement methodology and updates
the README with the actually-correct numbers.
Earlier comparison runs reported informix-db winning all 5
benchmarks. Re-running select_bench_table_all with consistent
measurement gives 3.04 ms, not the 891 us I cited earlier - a
3.4x discrepancy attributable to noisy warmup + small-fixture
artifacts. The "we win everything" framing was wrong.
Corrected comparison reveals two clear stories:
Bulk-insert: pure-Python wins 1.6x at scale.
executemany(10k): IfxPy 259ms -> us 161ms (1.6x faster)
executemany(100k): IfxPy 2376ms -> us 1487ms (1.6x faster)
Reason: Phase 33's pipelining eliminates per-row RTT. IfxPy's
per-call API can't pipeline.
Large-fetch: IfxPy wins 2.3-2.4x at scale.
SELECT 1k rows: IfxPy 1.2ms / us 2.7ms (IfxPy 2.3x)
SELECT 10k rows: IfxPy 11.3ms / us 25.8ms (IfxPy 2.3x)
SELECT 100k rows: IfxPy 112ms / us 271ms (IfxPy 2.4x)
Reason: C-level fetch_tuple at ~1.1us/row beats Python
parse_tuple_payload at ~2.7us/row. Real C-vs-Python codec gap
showing up at scale.
For everyday workloads (single SELECT in a request, INSERT a
handful of rows), drivers are within 5-25%. For workloads where
the gap widens, direction depends on what you're doing - bulk-
write favors us, bulk-read favors IfxPy.
README's "Compared to IfxPy" section rewritten with the corrected
numbers and an honest "when to prefer which" subsection.
tests/benchmarks/compare/README.md mirror updated.
Net narrative: a "faster at bulk-write, slower at bulk-read,
comparable elsewhere" comparison story is more honest and more
durable than a "we win everything" claim that would have collapsed
the first time a user ran their own benchmark.
Side note (lint): one ambiguous unicode `×` in cursors.py replaced
with `x`.
Phase 37 ticket: parse_tuple_payload is the bottleneck at scale.
Closing the 1.6 us/row gap to IfxPy would make us competitive on
bulk-fetch too. Possible approaches: Cython codec, deeper inlining,
per-column dispatch pre-bake.
Ryan Malloy
270155d2de