benchmarks: add Julia comparison results

benchmark/README.md

@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
 The benchmark scripts compare Julia's File, Mmap, and ZMQ backends and run
 matched Julia and Python workloads.
 
+Measured results and analysis are in [RESULTS.md](RESULTS.md).
+
 Run the full benchmarks from the repository root:
 
 ```sh

benchmark/RESULTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Benchmark results
+
+These results were measured on August 3, 2026 at commit `2024bd3`.
+
+## Environment
+
+| Item | Value |
+|---|---|
+| CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 4600H, 6 cores / 12 threads |
+| OS | Windows 11 Home Single Language, build 26200, 64-bit |
+| Julia | 1.10.11 |
+| Python | 3.11.4 |
+| ZMQ.jl | 1.5.1 |
+
+## Method
+
+Both scripts used the wire value `[0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0]`. A round trip
+writes a request, reads it, writes a reply, and reads the reply through the
+current Concore API.
+
+Each full run used 5,000 iterations, 100 warmup operations, and five measured
+repetitions. Julia and Python were run alternately three times each. The tables
+report the median of the three run-level medians. Setup and Julia compilation
+were outside the timed sections. Ratios were calculated from the median batch
+times before the displayed rates were rounded.
+
+ZMQ.jl 1.5.1 was installed in the temporary Julia project used for these
+runs. No repository dependency files were changed. The commands were run from
+the repository root:
+
+```powershell
+julia +1.10 --startup-file=no --project=$env:TEMP\concore-benchmark-julia-1.10 benchmark\bench_julia.jl
+py -3.11 benchmark\bench_python.py
+```
+
+## Julia backends
+
+Batch time covers 5,000 round trips. The range shows the rates from the three
+complete runs.
+
+| Backend | Median batch (ms) | Round trips/s | Run range |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| File | 21,208.055 | 236 | 211-238 |
+| Mmap | 2,839.998 | 1,761 | 1,744-1,791 |
+| ZMQ | 1,174.931 | 4,256 | 4,218-4,264 |
+
+On this machine, the observed Mmap rate was 7.47 times the File rate and the
+ZMQ rate was 18.05 times the File rate.
+
+## Julia and Python
+
+Batch time covers 5,000 operations or round trips. The ratio is the Julia rate
+divided by the Python rate.
+
+| Workload | Julia batch (ms) | Python batch (ms) | Julia rate | Python rate | Ratio |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| Parse wire | 17.905 | 57.348 | 279,250 ops/s | 87,187 ops/s | 3.20 |
+| Format wire | 3.343 | 3.852 | 1,495,663 ops/s | 1,297,926 ops/s | 1.15 |
+| File round trip | 21,208.055 | 22,247.748 | 236 round trips/s | 225 round trips/s | 1.05 |
+
+The parse result showed the largest difference in the matched workloads. File
+round-trip rates were close, and the Julia File result varied more across the
+three runs than the Mmap and ZMQ results.
+
+## Implementation notes
+
+The matched workloads use the current parser and formatter behavior and the
+current File APIs in each language. The Julia implementation is native and
+does not call through Python. Julia also exposes File, Mmap, and ZMQ through
+the same read/write API; the Mmap and ZMQ numbers above are Julia backend
+comparisons, not cross-language comparisons.
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Results come from one Windows machine and may change with the filesystem
+  cache, power settings, and background activity.
+- The ZMQ benchmark uses two local sockets in one process. It does not include
+  network or process scheduling overhead.
+- The round-trip workload is sequential and does not model a full study.
+- Julia and Python overlap only on parse, format, and File round trips in this
+  suite.
+- These measurements are not CI thresholds or general performance guarantees.