test(i): Test benchmark current local acp operations

[shahzadlone]

Relevant issue(s)

Resolves #3389

Description

• Bench mark acp register call
• Bench mark acp check call
• Bench mark acp is object registered? call

Benchmarking Reports:

• Old Performance Report
• New Performance Report

TLDR Comparisons of Old vs New:

Register:

BenchmarkACPRegisterOld/scale=256,inMem=true-22       14     81.2 ms/op     62.8 MB/op       1M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterOld/scale=512,inMem=true-22        4      283 ms/op      229 MB/op       4M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterOld/scale=1024,inMem=true-22       1      1.07 s/op      871 MB/op      15M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterOld/scale=2048,inMem=true-22       1      4.00 s/op     3.41 GB/op      60M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterOld/scale=4096,inMem=true-22       1      16.1 s/op     13.5 GB/op     238M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterOld/scale=8192,inMem=true-22       1      68.9 s/op     53.9 GB/op     946M allocs/op

BenchmarkACPRegisterNew/scale=256,inMem=true-22       57     21.8 ms/op     11.6 MB/op     213k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterNew/scale=512,inMem=true-22       25     44.5 ms/op     23.1 MB/op     426k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterNew/scale=1024,inMem=true-22      13     88.7 ms/op     46.3 MB/op     852k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterNew/scale=2048,inMem=true-22       6      178 ms/op     92.6 MB/op       2M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterNew/scale=4096,inMem=true-22       3      364 ms/op      185 MB/op       3M allocs/op
BenchmarkACPRegisterNew/scale=8192,inMem=true-22       2      744 ms/op      371 MB/op       7M allocs/op

CheckDocAccess:

BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessOld/scale=256,inMem=true-22       10     126 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     772 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessOld/scale=512,inMem=true-22       10     160 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     772 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessOld/scale=1024,inMem=true-22      10     138 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     772 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessOld/scale=2048,inMem=true-22      10     177 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     772 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessOld/scale=4096,inMem=true-22      10     171 µs/op     35.0 kB/op     773 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessOld/scale=8192,inMem=true-22      10     216 µs/op     36.2 kB/op     774 allocs/op

BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessNew/scale=256,inMem=true-22       10     101 µs/op     34.7 kB/op     769 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessNew/scale=512,inMem=true-22       10     102 µs/op     34.8 kB/op     770 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessNew/scale=1024,inMem=true-22      10     101 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     771 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessNew/scale=2048,inMem=true-22      10     101 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     771 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessNew/scale=4096,inMem=true-22      10     195 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     772 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPCheckDocAccessNew/scale=8192,inMem=true-22      10     102 µs/op     34.9 kB/op     772 allocs/op

IsDocRegistered:

BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredOld/scale=256,inMem=true-22       10      249 µs/op      221 kB/op      4k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredOld/scale=512,inMem=true-22       10      484 µs/op      422 kB/op      8k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredOld/scale=1024,inMem=true-22      10      957 µs/op      836 kB/op     15k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredOld/scale=2048,inMem=true-22      10     2.42 ms/op     1.64 MB/op     29k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredOld/scale=4096,inMem=true-22      10     3.98 ms/op     3.32 MB/op     58k allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredOld/scale=8192,inMem=true-22      10     9.00 ms/op     6.53 MB/op    115k allocs/op

BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredNew/scale=256,inMem=true-22       10     54.6 µs/op     20.9 kB/op     395 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredNew/scale=512,inMem=true-22       10     49.1 µs/op     20.9 kB/op     395 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredNew/scale=1024,inMem=true-22      10     44.3 µs/op     20.9 kB/op     395 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredNew/scale=2048,inMem=true-22      10     50.0 µs/op     20.9 kB/op     395 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredNew/scale=4096,inMem=true-22      10     47.0 µs/op     20.9 kB/op     395 allocs/op
BenchmarkACPIsDocRegisteredNew/scale=8192,inMem=true-22      10     50.1 µs/op     20.9 kB/op     395 allocs/op

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.34%. Comparing base (727800a) to head (65584d6).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3396      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    78.14%   78.34%   +0.21%     
===========================================
  Files          392      392              
  Lines        36045    36045              
===========================================
+ Hits         28164    28239      +75     
+ Misses        6201     6149      -52     
+ Partials      1680     1657      -23     

Flag	Coverage Δ
all-tests	78.34% <ø> (+0.21%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 16 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 727800a...65584d6. Read the comment docs.

[fredcarle]

Just one todo to remove commented out code.

One thing that would be nice is maybe instead of having the commit as part of the title, I would prefer having the date of the commit (acp_bench_report_20250114.md) so that the files can be ordered sequentially. The commit is mentioned at the top of the documentation so it will always be easy to refer to it if needed.

[fredcarle]

todo: Please remove commented code

[shahzadlone]

I want to keep it for now. I was benching a few other acp ops that I need it for (relationship stuff).

[Lodek]

Looks good, nice job Shahzad

[shahzadlone]

I would prefer having the date of the commit (acp_bench_report_20250114.md) so that the files can be ordered sequentially

I like this suggestion, will do!