perf: Update aggregated performance analysis [ci skip]
This commit is contained in:
parent
9a42515ec2
commit
6268800e9b
2 changed files with 47 additions and 35 deletions
|
|
@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
|
|||
# UN Inception: Aggregated Performance Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 1769277506.612118
|
||||
**Reports Analyzed:** 4.2.0, 4.2.10, 4.2.11, 4.2.12, 4.2.13, 4.2.14, 4.2.15, 4.2.16, 4.2.17, 4.2.18, 4.2.19, 4.2.20, 4.2.21, 4.2.22, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.2.9
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 1769282055.7116168
|
||||
**Reports Analyzed:** 4.2.0, 4.2.10, 4.2.11, 4.2.12, 4.2.13, 4.2.14, 4.2.15, 4.2.16, 4.2.17, 4.2.18, 4.2.19, 4.2.20, 4.2.21, 4.2.22, 4.2.24, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.2.9
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis of 21 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 22 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
|
||||
|
|
@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ Analysis of 21 performance reports reveals **significant variance** in execution
|
|||
| 4.2.20 | 114s | java (272s) | crystal (49s) | -37s (-24.5%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.21 | 102s | nim (215s) | erlang (22s) | -12s (-10.5%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.22 | 300s | javascript (2173s) | clojure (14s) | +198s (+194.1%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.3 | 63s | rust (142s) | v (40s) | -237s (-79.0%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.24 | 129s | python (494s) | clojure (8s) | -171s (-57.0%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.3 | 63s | rust (142s) | v (40s) | -66s (-51.2%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.4 | 70s | python (110s) | c (23s) | +7s (+11.1%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.5 | 67s | v (114s) | erlang (44s) | -3s (-4.3%) |
|
||||
| 4.2.6 | 54s | haskell (128s) | awk (23s) | -13s (-19.4%) |
|
||||
|
|
@ -73,6 +74,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.20: 87s
|
||||
- 4.2.21: 42s
|
||||
- 4.2.22: 2173s
|
||||
- 4.2.24: 242s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 75s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 109s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 60s
|
||||
|
|
@ -97,6 +99,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.20: 57s
|
||||
- 4.2.21: 24s
|
||||
- 4.2.22: 1834s
|
||||
- 4.2.24: 434s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 64s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 74s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 52s
|
||||
|
|
@ -121,6 +124,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.20: 103s
|
||||
- 4.2.21: 215s
|
||||
- 4.2.22: 1217s
|
||||
- 4.2.24: 8s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 52s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 76s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 58s
|
||||
|
|
@ -128,7 +132,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.7: 77s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 93s
|
||||
- 4.2.9: 42s
|
||||
- **Range:** 31s → 1217s (3825.8% variance)
|
||||
- **Range:** 8s → 1217s (15112.5% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**ZIG:**
|
||||
- 4.2.0: 32s
|
||||
|
|
@ -145,6 +149,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.20: 224s
|
||||
- 4.2.21: 192s
|
||||
- 4.2.22: 1014s
|
||||
- 4.2.24: 8s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 61s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 60s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 59s
|
||||
|
|
@ -152,7 +157,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.7: 79s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 187s
|
||||
- 4.2.9: 153s
|
||||
- **Range:** 32s → 1014s (3068.8% variance)
|
||||
- **Range:** 8s → 1014s (12575.0% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**LUA:**
|
||||
- 4.2.0: 32s
|
||||
|
|
@ -169,6 +174,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.20: 133s
|
||||
- 4.2.21: 183s
|
||||
- 4.2.22: 975s
|
||||
- 4.2.24: 9s
|
||||
- 4.2.3: 63s
|
||||
- 4.2.4: 71s
|
||||
- 4.2.5: 52s
|
||||
|
|
@ -176,7 +182,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
- 4.2.7: 152s
|
||||
- 4.2.8: 84s
|
||||
- 4.2.9: 56s
|
||||
- **Range:** 32s → 975s (2946.9% variance)
|
||||
- **Range:** 9s → 975s (10733.3% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -199,6 +205,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
4.2.20: crystal, v, deno, r, csharp
|
||||
4.2.21: erlang, r, ruby, awk, typescript
|
||||
4.2.22: powershell, clojure, scheme, objc, v
|
||||
4.2.24: zig, nim, kotlin, fortran, forth
|
||||
4.2.3: v, d, kotlin, awk, raku
|
||||
4.2.4: c, d, cobol, raku, v
|
||||
4.2.5: erlang, awk, bash, deno, tcl
|
||||
|
|
@ -223,6 +230,7 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
|||
4.2.20: java, zig, cobol, perl, haskell
|
||||
4.2.21: nim, dart, java, cpp, rust
|
||||
4.2.22: javascript, r, nim, zig, lua
|
||||
4.2.24: python, php, r, elixir, deno
|
||||
4.2.3: rust, c, python, typescript, javascript
|
||||
4.2.4: python, javascript, elixir, scheme, bash
|
||||
4.2.5: v, haskell, scheme, ocaml, powershell
|
||||
|
|
@ -315,22 +323,22 @@ JAVASCRIPT: 32s → 2173s (+6690.6%)
|
|||
|
||||
R: 24s → 1834s (+7541.7%)
|
||||
|
||||
NIM: 31s → 1217s (+3825.8%)
|
||||
NIM: 8s → 1217s (+15112.5%)
|
||||
|
||||
ZIG: 32s → 1014s (+3068.8%)
|
||||
ZIG: 8s → 1014s (+12575.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
LUA: 32s → 975s (+2946.9%)
|
||||
LUA: 9s → 975s (+10733.3%)
|
||||
|
||||
RUBY: 30s → 825s (+2650.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
HASKELL: 21s → 754s (+3490.5%)
|
||||
|
||||
PYTHON: 19s → 494s (+2500.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
PHP: 23s → 471s (+1947.8%)
|
||||
|
||||
PERL: 26s → 468s (+1700.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
DART: 28s → 451s (+1510.7%)
|
||||
|
||||
JAVA: 33s → 423s (+1181.8%)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
These languages are most affected by resource contention. Likely reasons:
|
||||
- **Dynamic languages** (Python, Ruby, JavaScript): Startup time varies with GC/JIT
|
||||
|
|
@ -382,26 +390,26 @@ Keep it as-is for stress testing, but in separate test environment.
|
|||
|
||||
| Language | Min (s) | Max (s) | Avg (s) | Range (s) | Variance % |
|
||||
|----------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| R | 24 | 1834 | 194.9 | 1810 | 7541.7% |
|
||||
| JAVASCRIPT | 32 | 2173 | 217.6 | 2141 | 6690.6% |
|
||||
| NIM | 31 | 1217 | 133.0 | 1186 | 3825.8% |
|
||||
| HASKELL | 21 | 754 | 125.5 | 733 | 3490.5% |
|
||||
| DOTNET | 5 | 176 | 85.6 | 171 | 3420.0% |
|
||||
| ZIG | 32 | 1014 | 161.8 | 982 | 3068.8% |
|
||||
| LUA | 32 | 975 | 158.1 | 943 | 2946.9% |
|
||||
| RUBY | 30 | 825 | 162.7 | 795 | 2650.0% |
|
||||
| CLOJURE | 14 | 310 | 105.4 | 296 | 2114.3% |
|
||||
| SCHEME | 15 | 320 | 100.0 | 305 | 2033.3% |
|
||||
| PERL | 26 | 468 | 109.2 | 442 | 1700.0% |
|
||||
| POWERSHELL | 14 | 247 | 82.9 | 233 | 1664.3% |
|
||||
| GROOVY | 23 | 393 | 94.1 | 370 | 1608.7% |
|
||||
| CRYSTAL | 24 | 397 | 113.8 | 373 | 1554.2% |
|
||||
| DART | 28 | 451 | 107.6 | 423 | 1510.7% |
|
||||
| ELIXIR | 20 | 313 | 116.8 | 293 | 1465.0% |
|
||||
| COBOL | 20 | 305 | 109.6 | 285 | 1425.0% |
|
||||
| PYTHON | 19 | 253 | 89.7 | 234 | 1231.6% |
|
||||
| AWK | 23 | 306 | 121.0 | 283 | 1230.4% |
|
||||
| CSHARP | 20 | 266 | 92.9 | 246 | 1230.0% |
|
||||
| NIM | 8 | 1217 | 127.3 | 1209 | 15112.5% |
|
||||
| ZIG | 8 | 1014 | 154.8 | 1006 | 12575.0% |
|
||||
| LUA | 9 | 975 | 151.3 | 966 | 10733.3% |
|
||||
| R | 24 | 1834 | 205.7 | 1810 | 7541.7% |
|
||||
| JAVASCRIPT | 32 | 2173 | 218.7 | 2141 | 6690.6% |
|
||||
| KOTLIN | 8 | 313 | 93.7 | 305 | 3812.5% |
|
||||
| CLOJURE | 8 | 310 | 101.0 | 302 | 3775.0% |
|
||||
| HASKELL | 21 | 754 | 123.0 | 733 | 3490.5% |
|
||||
| DOTNET | 5 | 176 | 81.1 | 171 | 3420.0% |
|
||||
| CSHARP | 8 | 266 | 89.0 | 258 | 3225.0% |
|
||||
| PROLOG | 9 | 262 | 76.7 | 253 | 2811.1% |
|
||||
| FORTH | 8 | 231 | 94.0 | 223 | 2787.5% |
|
||||
| RUBY | 30 | 825 | 160.4 | 795 | 2650.0% |
|
||||
| PYTHON | 19 | 494 | 108.1 | 475 | 2500.0% |
|
||||
| RUST | 9 | 234 | 116.9 | 225 | 2500.0% |
|
||||
| D | 8 | 203 | 82.8 | 195 | 2437.5% |
|
||||
| SCHEME | 15 | 320 | 98.9 | 305 | 2033.3% |
|
||||
| PHP | 23 | 471 | 123.0 | 448 | 1947.8% |
|
||||
| ELIXIR | 20 | 404 | 129.9 | 384 | 1920.0% |
|
||||
| FORTRAN | 8 | 161 | 71.9 | 153 | 1912.5% |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -470,6 +478,7 @@ Individual Reports → Aggregation Script → Chart Generation (via UN) → Fina
|
|||
- `reports/4.2.20/perf.json` - 685 tests, generated 2026-01-23T20:41:23Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.21/perf.json` - 661 tests, generated 2026-01-23T21:16:07Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.22/perf.json` - 697 tests, generated 2026-01-24T17:57:56Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.24/perf.json` - 665 tests, generated 2026-01-24T19:13:51Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.3/perf.json` - 642 tests, generated 2026-01-19T11:58:45Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.4/perf.json` - 682 tests, generated 2026-01-19T12:02:14Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.5/perf.json` - 658 tests, generated 2026-01-19T19:10:23Z
|
||||
|
|
@ -673,5 +682,5 @@ For questions about this methodology or to report issues:
|
|||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated by UN Inception Performance Analysis Pipeline**
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 2026-01-24T12:58:26.732493
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 2026-01-24T14:14:15.842875
|
||||
**Report Version:** 1.0.0
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -28,4 +28,7 @@ Tracking compile and test execution times across releases.
|
|||
| 4.2.21 | 2026-01-23 | 661 | 100.0% | 102s | nim | erlang |
|
||||
| 4.2.22 | 2026-01-24 | 697 | 99.5% | 300s | javascript | clojure |
|
||||
| 4.2.24 | 2026-01-24 | 665 | 100.0% | 129s | python | clojure |
|
||||
<<<<<<< Updated upstream
|
||||
| 4.2.23 | 2026-01-24 | 713 | 100.0% | 373s | zig | perl |
|
||||
=======
|
||||
>>>>>>> Stashed changes
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue