perf: Update aggregated performance analysis [ci skip]
This commit is contained in:
GitLab CI
parent
d593a671aa
commit
1e6f06845c
1 changed files with 48 additions and 39 deletions
|
|
@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
|
|||
# UN Inception: Aggregated Performance Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 1769160997.9100175
|
||||
**Reports Analyzed:** 4.2.0, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 1769162516.8008766
|
||||
**Reports Analyzed:** 4.2.0, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.2.8
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis of 6 performance reports reveals **significant variance** in execution metrics across releases. Different languages rank as slowest/fastest in different runs, indicating **non-deterministic execution patterns** likely caused by:
|
||||
Analysis of 7 performance reports reveals **significant variance** in execution metrics across releases. Different languages rank as slowest/fastest in different runs, indicating **non-deterministic execution patterns** likely caused by:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Orchestrator placement on CPU-bound pool** (not an SRE best practice)
|
||||
2. **Resource contention** between the orchestrator & test jobs
|
||||
|
|
@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ Analysis of 6 performance reports reveals **significant variance** in execution
|
|||
| 4.2.5 | 67s | v (114s) | erlang (44s) | -3s (-4.3%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.6 | 54s | haskell (128s) | awk (23s) | -13s (-19.4%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.7 | 117s | typescript (319s) | dotnet (5s) | +63s (+116.7%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.8 | 111s | kotlin (313s) | fortran (28s) | -6s (-5.1%) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Observation:** Average duration increased **0.0%** from 0s to 0s.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.5: 55s
|
||||
- 4.2.6: 41s
|
||||
- 4.2.7: 313s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 127s
|
||||
- **Range:** 20s → 313s (1465.0% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**TYPESCRIPT:**
|
||||
|
|
@ -59,6 +61,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.5: 59s
|
||||
- 4.2.6: 53s
|
||||
- 4.2.7: 319s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 94s
|
||||
- **Range:** 29s → 319s (1000.0% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**R:**
|
||||
|
|
@ -68,8 +71,19 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.5: 52s
|
||||
- 4.2.6: 47s
|
||||
- 4.2.7: 313s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 126s
|
||||
- **Range:** 25s → 313s (1152.0% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**KOTLIN:**
|
||||
- 4.2.0: 27s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 45s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 54s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 61s
|
||||
- 4.2.6: 69s
|
||||
- 4.2.7: 49s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 313s
|
||||
- **Range:** 27s → 313s (1059.3% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**RUBY:**
|
||||
- 4.2.0: 35s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 74s
|
||||
|
|
@ -77,17 +91,9 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.5: 60s
|
||||
- 4.2.6: 48s
|
||||
- 4.2.7: 318s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 93s
|
||||
- **Range:** 35s → 318s (808.6% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**CRYSTAL:**
|
||||
- 4.2.0: 24s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 61s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 60s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 88s
|
||||
- 4.2.6: 28s
|
||||
- 4.2.7: 260s
|
||||
- **Range:** 24s → 260s (983.3% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -101,6 +107,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
4.2.5: erlang, awk, bash, deno, tcl
|
||||
4.2.6: awk, powershell, crystal, raku, erlang
|
||||
4.2.7: dotnet, deno, awk, fortran, commonlisp
|
||||
4.2.8: fortran, groovy, crystal, java, powershell
|
||||
|
||||
**Slowest Languages by Run:**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -110,6 +117,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
4.2.5: v, haskell, scheme, ocaml, powershell
|
||||
4.2.6: haskell, go, cpp, rust, forth
|
||||
4.2.7: typescript, ruby, r, elixir, crystal
|
||||
4.2.8: kotlin, python, javascript, tcl, raku
|
||||
|
||||
**Conclusion:** No consistent "fast" or "slow" languages across runs. This proves:
|
||||
- Execution order is random or system-dependent
|
||||
|
|
@ -197,19 +205,19 @@ TYPESCRIPT: 29s → 319s (+1000.0%)
|
|||
|
||||
R: 25s → 313s (+1152.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
KOTLIN: 27s → 313s (+1059.3%)
|
||||
|
||||
RUBY: 35s → 318s (+808.6%)
|
||||
|
||||
CRYSTAL: 24s → 260s (+983.3%)
|
||||
|
||||
TCL: 20s → 247s (+1135.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
PYTHON: 40s → 253s (+532.5%)
|
||||
|
||||
PHP: 23s → 235s (+921.7%)
|
||||
|
||||
BASH: 35s → 233s (+565.7%)
|
||||
|
||||
JULIA: 32s → 226s (+606.2%)
|
||||
|
||||
OBJC: 29s → 223s (+669.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
PERL: 26s → 155s (+496.2%)
|
||||
RAKU: 33s → 240s (+627.3%)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
These languages are most affected by resource contention. Likely reasons:
|
||||
|
|
@ -262,26 +270,26 @@ Keep it as-is for stress testing, but in separate test environment.
|
|||
|
||||
| Language | Min (s) | Max (s) | Avg (s) | Range (s) | Variance % |
|
||||
|----------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| ELIXIR | 20 | 313 | 100.5 | 293 | 1465.0% |
|
||||
| R | 25 | 313 | 95.8 | 288 | 1152.0% |
|
||||
| TYPESCRIPT | 29 | 319 | 102.5 | 290 | 1000.0% |
|
||||
| CRYSTAL | 24 | 260 | 86.8 | 236 | 983.3% |
|
||||
| PHP | 23 | 235 | 84.2 | 212 | 921.7% |
|
||||
| RUBY | 35 | 318 | 102.3 | 283 | 808.6% |
|
||||
| OBJC | 29 | 223 | 85.8 | 194 | 669.0% |
|
||||
| TCL | 20 | 148 | 69.7 | 128 | 640.0% |
|
||||
| DOTNET | 5 | 102 | 53.5 | 97 | 1940.0% |
|
||||
| ELIXIR | 20 | 313 | 104.3 | 293 | 1465.0% |
|
||||
| R | 25 | 313 | 100.1 | 288 | 1152.0% |
|
||||
| TCL | 20 | 247 | 95.0 | 227 | 1135.0% |
|
||||
| KOTLIN | 27 | 313 | 88.3 | 286 | 1059.3% |
|
||||
| TYPESCRIPT | 29 | 319 | 101.3 | 290 | 1000.0% |
|
||||
| CRYSTAL | 24 | 260 | 80.7 | 236 | 983.3% |
|
||||
| PHP | 23 | 235 | 85.1 | 212 | 921.7% |
|
||||
| COBOL | 20 | 199 | 71.4 | 179 | 895.0% |
|
||||
| RUBY | 35 | 318 | 101.0 | 283 | 808.6% |
|
||||
| OCAML | 19 | 167 | 74.3 | 148 | 778.9% |
|
||||
| HASKELL | 21 | 168 | 89.0 | 147 | 700.0% |
|
||||
| OBJC | 29 | 223 | 86.3 | 194 | 669.0% |
|
||||
| RAKU | 33 | 240 | 86.7 | 207 | 627.3% |
|
||||
| JULIA | 32 | 226 | 87.7 | 194 | 606.2% |
|
||||
| BASH | 35 | 233 | 86.3 | 198 | 565.7% |
|
||||
| HASKELL | 21 | 128 | 75.8 | 107 | 509.5% |
|
||||
| SCHEME | 24 | 146 | 79.8 | 122 | 508.3% |
|
||||
| PERL | 26 | 155 | 70.2 | 129 | 496.2% |
|
||||
| POWERSHELL | 26 | 141 | 74.0 | 115 | 442.3% |
|
||||
| V | 22 | 114 | 59.8 | 92 | 418.2% |
|
||||
| ERLANG | 29 | 148 | 70.0 | 119 | 410.3% |
|
||||
| OCAML | 19 | 94 | 58.8 | 75 | 394.7% |
|
||||
| LUA | 32 | 152 | 67.7 | 120 | 375.0% |
|
||||
| C | 23 | 107 | 61.2 | 84 | 365.2% |
|
||||
| CLOJURE | 21 | 97 | 57.5 | 76 | 361.9% |
|
||||
| BASH | 35 | 233 | 96.1 | 198 | 565.7% |
|
||||
| FSHARP | 26 | 165 | 71.4 | 139 | 534.6% |
|
||||
| PYTHON | 40 | 253 | 93.1 | 213 | 532.5% |
|
||||
| SCHEME | 24 | 146 | 76.3 | 122 | 508.3% |
|
||||
| PERL | 26 | 155 | 73.1 | 129 | 496.2% |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -342,6 +350,7 @@ Individual Reports → Aggregation Script → Chart Generation (via UN) → Fina
|
|||
- `reports/4.2.5/perf.json` - 658 tests, generated 2026-01-19T19:10:23Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.6/perf.json` - 642 tests, generated 2026-01-19T20:22:16Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.7/perf.json` - 631 tests, generated 2026-01-23T09:36:18Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.8/perf.json` - 645 tests, generated 2026-01-23T10:01:33Z
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Each `perf.json` contains:
|
||||
|
|
@ -538,5 +547,5 @@ For questions about this methodology or to report issues:
|
|||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated by UN Inception Performance Analysis Pipeline**
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 2026-01-23T04:36:38.092232
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 2026-01-23T05:01:56.883707
|
||||
**Report Version:** 1.0.0
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue