docs: Update benchmarks

Author: Stranger6667

README.md

@@ -181,14 +181,14 @@ fn main() -> css_inline::Result<()> {
 
 `css-inline` typically inlines HTML emails within hundreds of microseconds, though results may vary with input complexity.
 
-Benchmarks for `css-inline==0.12.0`:
+Benchmarks for `css-inline==0.13.0`:
 
-- Basic: **6.51 µs**, 230 bytes
-- Realistic-1: **137.91 µs**, 8.58 KB
-- Realistic-2: **87.85 µs**, 4.3 KB
-- GitHub page: **265.26 ms**, 1.81 MB
+- Basic: **6.29 µs**, 230 bytes
+- Realistic-1: **127.72 µs**, 8.58 KB
+- Realistic-2: **82.74 µs**, 4.3 KB
+- GitHub page: **227.76 ms**, 1.81 MB
 
-These benchmarks, conducted using `rustc 1.74.1`, can be found in `css-inline/benches/inliner.rs`.
+These benchmarks, conducted using `rustc 1.75.0`, can be found in `css-inline/benches/inliner.rs`.
 
 ## Command Line Interface
 

bindings/javascript/README.md

@@ -153,19 +153,19 @@ Such tags will be kept in the resulting HTML even if the `keep_style_tags` optio
 ## Performance
 
 `css-inline` is powered by efficient tooling from Mozilla's Servo project and significantly outperforms other JavaScript alternatives in terms of speed.
-Most of the time it achieves over a **4x** speed advantage compared to the next fastest alternative.
+Most of the time it achieves over a **3x** speed advantage compared to the next fastest alternative.
 
 Here is the performance comparison:
 
-|             | Size    | `css-inline 0.12.0` | `css-inline-wasm 0.12.0` | `juice 10.0.0`        | `inline-css 4.0.2`     |
-|-------------|---------|---------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|
-| Basic       | 230 B   | 15.06 µs            | 29.33 µs (**1.94x**)     | 142.53 µs (**9.46x**) | 163.77 µs (**10.87x**) |
-| Realistic-1 | 8.58 KB | 320.71 µs           | 638.97 µs (**1.99x**)    | 1.28 ms (**4.01x**)   | 1.87 ms (**5.85x**)    |
-| Realistic-2 | 4.3 KB  | 205.21 µs           | 385.20 µs (**1.87x**)    | 1.72 ms (**8.42x**)   | 1.56 ms (**7.63x**)    |
+|             | Size    | `css-inline 0.13.0` | `css-inline-wasm 0.13.0` | `juice 10.0.0`       | `inline-css 4.0.2`   |
+|-------------|---------|---------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|
+| Basic       | 230 B   | 15.34 µs            | 19.99 µs (**1.30x**)     | 56.70 µs (**3.69x**) | 67.95 µs (**4.42x**) |
+| Realistic-1 | 8.58 KB | 333.22 µs           | 434.59 µs (**1.30x**)    | 1.07 ms (**3.23x**)  | 1.24 ms (**3.73x**)  |
+| Realistic-2 | 4.3 KB  | 195.80 µs           | 261.09 µs (**1.33x**)    | 0.99 ms (**5.10x**)  | 0.76 ms (**3.90x**)  |
 
 The "Basic" case was obtained from benchmarking the example from the Usage section.
 
-The benchmarking code is available in the `benches/bench.ts` file. The benchmarks were conducted using the stable `rustc 1.74.1` on Node.js `v21.4.0`.
+The benchmarking code is available in the `benches/bench.ts` file. The benchmarks were conducted using the stable `rustc 1.75.0` on Node.js `v21.1.0`.
 
 ## License
 

bindings/python/README.md

@@ -190,17 +190,17 @@ Most of the time it achieves over a **10x** speed advantage compared to the next
 
 Here is the performance comparison:
 
-|             | Size    | `css_inline 0.12.0` | `premailer 3.10.0`     | `toronado 0.1.0`       | `inlinestyler 0.2.5`   | `pynliner 0.8.0`       |
+|             | Size    | `css_inline 0.13.0` | `premailer 3.10.0`     | `toronado 0.1.0`       | `inlinestyler 0.2.5`   | `pynliner 0.8.0`       |
 |-------------|---------|---------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
-| Basic       | 230 B   | 6.75 µs             | 131.50 µs (**19.48x**) | 666.20 µs (**98.70x**) | 1.05 ms (**155.82x**)  | 1.20 ms (**178.63x**)  |
-| Realistic-1 | 8.58 KB | 138.79 µs           | 1.43 ms (**10.34x**)   | 16.52 ms (**119.07x**) | 27.59 ms (**198.85x**) | 51.74 ms (**372.84x**) |
-| Realistic-2 | 4.3 KB  | 86.95 µs            | 2.69 ms (**31.03x**)   | ERROR                  | 18.06 ms (**207.76x**) | ERROR                  |
-| GitHub page | 1.81 MB | 338.88 ms           | 25.58 s (**75.49x**)   | ERROR                  | ERROR                  | ERROR                  |
+| Basic       | 230 B   | 6.54 µs             | 126.95 µs (**19.41x**) | 653.12 µs (**99.85x**) | 1.02 ms (**157.14x**)  | 1.17ms (**179.91x**)   |
+| Realistic-1 | 8.58 KB | 133.87 µs           | 1.41 ms (**10.60x**)   | 15.85 ms (**118.39x**) | 26.48 ms (**197.86x**) | 51.56 ms (**385.18x**) |
+| Realistic-2 | 4.3 KB  | 85.41 µs            | 2.65 ms (**31.09x**)   | ERROR                  | 17.68 ms (**207.07x**) | ERROR                  |
+| GitHub page | 1.81 MB | 229.02 ms           | 24.73 s (**108.02x**)  | ERROR                  | ERROR                  | ERROR                  |
 
 The "Basic" case was obtained from benchmarking the example from the Usage section.
 Note that the `toronado`, `inlinestyler` and `pynliner` libraries both encountered errors when used to inline CSS in the last scenario.
 
-The benchmarking code is available in the `benches/bench.py` file. The benchmarks were conducted using the stable `rustc 1.74.1` on Python `3.11.6`.
+The benchmarking code is available in the `benches/bench.py` file. The benchmarks were conducted using the stable `rustc 1.75.0` on Python `3.11.7`.
 
 ## Comparison with other libraries
 

bindings/ruby/README.md

@@ -157,15 +157,15 @@ It consistently outperforms `premailer`, offering speed increases often exceedin
 
 The table below provides a detailed comparison between `css_inline` and `premailer` when inlining CSS into an HTML document (like in the Usage section above):
 
-|                   | Size    | `css_inline 0.12.0` | `premailer 1.21.0 with Nokogiri 1.15.2`        | Difference |
+|                   | Size    | `css_inline 0.13.0` | `premailer 1.21.0 with Nokogiri 1.15.2`        | Difference |
 |-------------------|---------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------|
-| Basic usage       | 230 B   | 8.27 µs             | 433.55 µs                                      | **52.35x** |
-| Realistic email 1 | 8.58 KB | 159.20 µs           | 9.88 ms                                        | **62.10x** |
-| Realistic email 2 | 4.3 KB  | 103.41 µs           | Error: Cannot parse 0 calc((100% - 500px) / 2) | -          |
-| GitHub Page       | 1.81 MB | 301.66 ms           | 3.08 s                                         | **10.24x** |
+| Basic usage       | 230 B   | 7.79 µs             | 417.56 µs                                      | **53.57x** |
+| Realistic email 1 | 8.58 KB | 149.56 µs           | 9.73 ms                                        | **65.07x** |
+| Realistic email 2 | 4.3 KB  | 93.19 µs            | Error: Cannot parse 0 calc((100% - 500px) / 2) | -          |
+| GitHub Page       | 1.81 MB | 237.03 ms           | 3.02 s                                         | **12.78x** |
 
 Please refer to the `test/bench.rb` file to review the benchmark code.
-The results displayed above were measured using stable `rustc 1.74.1` on Ruby `3.2.2`.
+The results displayed above were measured using stable `rustc 1.75.0` on Ruby `3.2.2`.
 
 ## Further reading