Skip to content
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

Handle Noise Better #1489

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2022
Merged

Conversation

rylev
Copy link
Member

@rylev rylev commented Nov 3, 2022

This adjusts historical analysis to handle noise more quickly. The following changes are included:

  • Limit the number of historical runs that are used to compute significance threshold to 30 instead of 100. This means that if a test case starts to become noisy, the significance threshold will more quickly reflect this.
  • Expose significance threshold in the compare page. Being able to see the significance threshold will allow readers to more quickly judge whether a test case is historically noisy or not. See below for what this looks like.
  • Sort test cases on the compare page by significance factor. The tests cases with the largest change in comparison to the historical average will be on top vs. just the test cases with the largest change (which favors noisy test cases).

image

@rylev rylev requested a review from Kobzol November 3, 2022 19:30
Copy link
Contributor

@Kobzol Kobzol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Displaying how noisy a certain benchmark is sounds like a great idea.

I'm not sure about the sorting though. Maybe I'll just need to get used to it. Maybe we could add a checkbox to toggle between sorting by significance/absolute change?

It's probably a bit unintuitive that the tables contain max/min absolute change, but that won't be reflected in the table order.

site/static/compare/script.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I think sorting by the change itself still makes sense, rather than the significance factor. Two benchmarks with roughly equivalent significance (e.g., 10x - basically "high") should be ordered by the change each had, which with different noise levels etc might well be different.

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for this PR, it's good that this will be improving. Comments:

  • I think it would be better to have this column order: change, significance threshold, significance factor.
  • I agree that sorting by significance factor is surprising, and shouldn't be the default. A toggle for it would be reasonable. Even better would be if we could sort by any of the columns, in both ascending and descending order. (But that's way beyond the scope of this PR.)

@rylev
Copy link
Member Author

rylev commented Nov 4, 2022

I've reverted the change to sorting, and I've changed the ordering of the columns to put the threshold first and then the factor.

@rylev rylev requested a review from Kobzol November 4, 2022 11:41
@rylev rylev merged commit 98e218f into rust-lang:master Nov 4, 2022
@rylev rylev deleted the adjust-historical-analysis branch November 4, 2022 18:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants