# Performance of CommonMark reference implementations

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/performance-of-commonmark-reference-implementations/16>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [September 1, 2014, 7:26am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/performance-of-commonmark-reference-implementations/16 "2014-09-01T07:26:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mity](https://talk.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/mity/32/1040_2.png) [@mity](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/mity)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2021, 10:06am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/performance-of-commonmark-reference-implementations/16/18 "2021-02-07T10:06:00Z")

</div>

Take a look at this post too: [Why is MD4C so fast? [C] - #12 by mity](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/why-is-md4c-so-fast-c/2520/12)

It was a one-time hack, but I can imagine it might be expanded and turned into a more reusable form. The advantage of it is that it does actually multiple mini-benchmarks, each trying to address some particular part of the parser implementation. So this approach can also give a hint where your implementation can be behind.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/performance-of-commonmark-reference-implementations/16)._