I've benchmarked them every few years, they never seem to differ by more than a few percent, and jemalloc seems to fragment and leak the least for processes running for months.
replyMimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing, so I am not inclined to trust it now.
> Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing
replyThat’s… ahistorical, at least so far as I remember. It wasn’t marketed as either of those; it was marketed as small/simple/consistent with an opt-in high-severity mode, and then its performance bore out as a result of the first set of target features/design goals. It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.
> It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.
replyThat is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.
Look up the numbers in other comments above. When it comes to performance, the Google's tcmalloc is unconquered.
reply