-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 469
chore(profiling): use abseil instead of cwisstable #15424
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
|
Bootstrap import analysisComparison of import times between this PR and base. SummaryThe average import time from this PR is: 246 ± 2 ms. The average import time from base is: 249 ± 2 ms. The import time difference between this PR and base is: -2.76 ± 0.08 ms. Import time breakdownThe following import paths have shrunk:
|
Performance SLOsComparing candidate dsn/absail-hash-table (97aef22) with baseline main (8851ec9) 📈 Performance Regressions (2 suites)📈 iastaspectsospath - 24/24✅ ospathbasename_aspectTime: ✅ 5.196µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -48.0%) vs baseline: 📈 +20.9% Memory: ✅ 40.285MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +4.9% ✅ ospathbasename_noaspectTime: ✅ 1.081µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -89.2%) vs baseline: -0.3% Memory: ✅ 40.206MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.9%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ ospathjoin_aspectTime: ✅ 6.198µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -38.0%) vs baseline: +1.1% Memory: ✅ 40.344MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +4.9% ✅ ospathjoin_noaspectTime: ✅ 2.287µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -77.1%) vs baseline: -0.5% Memory: ✅ 40.442MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.4%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathnormcase_aspectTime: ✅ 3.547µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -64.5%) vs baseline: +1.0% Memory: ✅ 40.423MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.4%) vs baseline: +5.3% ✅ ospathnormcase_noaspectTime: ✅ 0.565µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -94.4%) vs baseline: -0.7% Memory: ✅ 40.403MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.5%) vs baseline: +5.2% ✅ ospathsplit_aspectTime: ✅ 4.862µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -51.4%) vs baseline: -1.2% Memory: ✅ 40.206MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.9%) vs baseline: +4.6% ✅ ospathsplit_noaspectTime: ✅ 1.588µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -84.1%) vs baseline: -0.5% Memory: ✅ 40.403MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.5%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathsplitdrive_aspectTime: ✅ 3.695µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -63.0%) vs baseline: -0.4% Memory: ✅ 40.305MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathsplitdrive_noaspectTime: ✅ 0.699µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -93.0%) vs baseline: +0.5% Memory: ✅ 40.383MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.5%) vs baseline: +5.5% ✅ ospathsplitext_aspectTime: ✅ 4.589µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -54.1%) vs baseline: +0.2% Memory: ✅ 40.246MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathsplitext_noaspectTime: ✅ 1.396µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -86.0%) vs baseline: +1.6% Memory: ✅ 40.344MB (SLO: <41.000MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +5.2% 📈 telemetryaddmetric - 30/30✅ 1-count-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 3.404µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -83.0%) vs baseline: 📈 +17.1% Memory: ✅ 34.937MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-count-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 199.875µs (SLO: <220.000µs -9.1%) vs baseline: -0.8% Memory: ✅ 34.859MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ 1-distribution-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 3.249µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -83.8%) vs baseline: -0.2% Memory: ✅ 34.819MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.9%) vs baseline: +4.7% ✅ 1-distribution-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 214.904µs (SLO: <230.000µs -6.6%) vs baseline: ~same Memory: ✅ 34.977MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.5%) vs baseline: +4.9% ✅ 1-gauge-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 2.164µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -89.2%) vs baseline: -0.4% Memory: ✅ 34.898MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-gauge-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 135.651µs (SLO: <150.000µs -9.6%) vs baseline: -0.4% Memory: ✅ 34.898MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +5.2% ✅ 1-rate-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 3.053µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -84.7%) vs baseline: ~same Memory: ✅ 34.819MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.9%) vs baseline: +4.6% ✅ 1-rate-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 213.964µs (SLO: <250.000µs 📉 -14.4%) vs baseline: +0.3% Memory: ✅ 34.918MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +5.1% ✅ 100-count-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 20.343ms (SLO: <22.000ms -7.5%) vs baseline: +0.5% Memory: ✅ 34.918MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +4.5% ✅ 100-distribution-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 2.236ms (SLO: <2.300ms -2.8%) vs baseline: ~same Memory: ✅ 34.918MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 100-gauge-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 1.410ms (SLO: <1.550ms -9.1%) vs baseline: +0.5% Memory: ✅ 34.918MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.6%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 100-rate-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 2.210ms (SLO: <2.550ms 📉 -13.3%) vs baseline: +0.5% Memory: ✅ 34.977MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.5%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ flush-1-metricTime: ✅ 4.485µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -77.6%) vs baseline: +0.5% Memory: ✅ 35.291MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -0.6%) vs baseline: +5.1% ✅ flush-100-metricsTime: ✅ 175.189µs (SLO: <250.000µs 📉 -29.9%) vs baseline: +0.4% Memory: ✅ 35.291MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -0.6%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ flush-1000-metricsTime: ✅ 2.189ms (SLO: <2.500ms 📉 -12.5%) vs baseline: -0.3% Memory: ✅ 36.058MB (SLO: <36.500MB 🟡 -1.2%) vs baseline: +4.7% 🟡 Near SLO Breach (17 suites)🟡 coreapiscenario - 10/10 (1 unstable)
|
|
Looking at DOE benchmarks (thanks @realFlowControl), we see that this has minimal change to performance. <style type="text/css"></style>
|
gleocadie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Description
Testing
Risks
Additional Notes