engineering/un-inception
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

perf: Update aggregated performance analysis [ci skip]

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
GitLab CI 2026-01-24 12:58:29 -05:00
parent 2301b9ee2e
commit 6c2ae4cba5
1 changed files with 223 additions and 52 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

275
AGGREGATED-PERFORMANCE.md
View file

@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
# UN Inception: Aggregated Performance Analysis # UN Inception: Aggregated Performance Analysis
**Analysis Date:** 1769203039.9327624 **Analysis Date:** 1769277506.612118
**Reports Analyzed:** 4.2.20, 4.2.21 **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
--- ---
## Executive Summary ## Executive Summary
Analysis of 2 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 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:
1. **Orchestrator placement on CPU-bound pool** (not an SRE best practice) 1. **Orchestrator placement on CPU-bound pool** (not an SRE best practice)
2. **Resource contention** between the orchestrator & test jobs 2. **Resource contention** between the orchestrator & test jobs
@ -22,8 +22,27 @@ Analysis of 2 performance reports reveals **significant variance** in execution
| Release | Avg Duration | Slowest | Fastest | Change from Previous | | Release | Avg Duration | Slowest | Fastest | Change from Previous |
|---------|--------------|---------|---------|----------------------| |---------|--------------|---------|---------|----------------------|
| 4.2.20 | 114s | java (272s) | crystal (49s) | baseline | | 4.2.0 | 33s | raku (93s) | ocaml (19s) | baseline |
| 4.2.10 | 153s | scheme (320s) | bash (29s) | +120s (+363.6%) |
| 4.2.11 | 103s | deno (289s) | cpp (43s) | -50s (-32.7%) |
| 4.2.12 | 142s | go (406s) | erlang (21s) | +39s (+37.9%) |
| 4.2.13 | 126s | deno (290s) | haskell (23s) | -16s (-11.3%) |
| 4.2.14 | 97s | javascript (172s) | go (38s) | -29s (-23.0%) |
| 4.2.15 | 103s | d (203s) | cobol (49s) | +6s (+6.2%) |
| 4.2.16 | 98s | javascript (361s) | c (40s) | -5s (-4.9%) |
| 4.2.17 | 104s | ruby (270s) | objc (17s) | +6s (+6.1%) |
| 4.2.18 | 100s | r (298s) | scheme (48s) | -4s (-3.8%) |
| 4.2.19 | 151s | lua (472s) | dart (40s) | +51s (+51.0%) |
| 4.2.20 | 114s | java (272s) | crystal (49s) | -37s (-24.5%) |
| 4.2.21 | 102s | nim (215s) | erlang (22s) | -12s (-10.5%) | | 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%) |
| 4.2.4 | 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%) |
| 4.2.7 | 117s | typescript (319s) | dotnet (5s) | +63s (+116.7%) |
| 4.2.8 | 111s | kotlin (313s) | fortran (28s) | -6s (-5.1%) |
| 4.2.9 | 107s | ruby (279s) | d (19s) | -4s (-3.6%) |
**Observation:** Average duration increased **0.0%** from 0s to 0s. **Observation:** Average duration increased **0.0%** from 0s to 0s.
@ -39,30 +58,125 @@ This **2-3x variance** is NOT normal for identical workloads. Indicates:
The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs: The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
**COBOL:** **JAVASCRIPT:**
- 4.2.20: 198s - 4.2.0: 90s
- 4.2.21: 62s - 4.2.10: 107s
- **Range:** 62s → 198s (219.4% variance) - 4.2.11: 60s
- 4.2.12: 32s
- 4.2.13: 173s
- 4.2.14: 172s
- 4.2.15: 130s
- 4.2.16: 361s
- 4.2.17: 127s
- 4.2.18: 79s
- 4.2.19: 68s
- 4.2.20: 87s
- 4.2.21: 42s
- 4.2.22: 2173s
- 4.2.3: 75s
- 4.2.4: 109s
- 4.2.5: 60s
- 4.2.6: 50s
- 4.2.7: 155s
- 4.2.8: 253s
- 4.2.9: 166s
- **Range:** 32s → 2173s (6690.6% variance)
**AWK:** **R:**
- 4.2.20: 145s - 4.2.0: 25s
- 4.2.21: 33s - 4.2.10: 181s
- **Range:** 33s → 145s (339.4% variance) - 4.2.11: 95s
- 4.2.12: 169s
- 4.2.13: 107s
- 4.2.14: 144s
- 4.2.15: 164s
- 4.2.16: 64s
- 4.2.17: 94s
- 4.2.18: 298s
- 4.2.19: 106s
- 4.2.20: 57s
- 4.2.21: 24s
- 4.2.22: 1834s
- 4.2.3: 64s
- 4.2.4: 74s
- 4.2.5: 52s
- 4.2.6: 47s
- 4.2.7: 313s
- 4.2.8: 126s
- 4.2.9: 54s
- **Range:** 24s → 1834s (7541.7% variance)
**NIM:** **NIM:**
- 4.2.0: 31s
- 4.2.10: 78s
- 4.2.11: 68s
- 4.2.12: 36s
- 4.2.13: 41s
- 4.2.14: 97s
- 4.2.15: 99s
- 4.2.16: 80s
- 4.2.17: 98s
- 4.2.18: 71s
- 4.2.19: 102s
- 4.2.20: 103s - 4.2.20: 103s
- 4.2.21: 215s - 4.2.21: 215s
- **Range:** 103s → 215s (108.7% variance) - 4.2.22: 1217s
- 4.2.3: 52s
- 4.2.4: 76s
- 4.2.5: 58s
- 4.2.6: 58s
- 4.2.7: 77s
- 4.2.8: 93s
- 4.2.9: 42s
- **Range:** 31s → 1217s (3825.8% variance)
**TYPESCRIPT:** **ZIG:**
- 4.2.20: 138s - 4.2.0: 32s
- 4.2.21: 39s - 4.2.10: 185s
- **Range:** 39s → 138s (253.8% variance) - 4.2.11: 68s
- 4.2.12: 199s
- 4.2.13: 145s
- 4.2.14: 61s
- 4.2.15: 151s
- 4.2.16: 131s
- 4.2.17: 175s
- 4.2.18: 72s
- 4.2.19: 90s
- 4.2.20: 224s
- 4.2.21: 192s
- 4.2.22: 1014s
- 4.2.3: 61s
- 4.2.4: 60s
- 4.2.5: 59s
- 4.2.6: 59s
- 4.2.7: 79s
- 4.2.8: 187s
- 4.2.9: 153s
- **Range:** 32s → 1014s (3068.8% variance)
**CPP:** **LUA:**
- 4.2.20: 107s - 4.2.0: 32s
- 4.2.21: 204s - 4.2.10: 51s
- **Range:** 107s → 204s (90.7% variance) - 4.2.11: 56s
- 4.2.12: 53s
- 4.2.13: 203s
- 4.2.14: 127s
- 4.2.15: 166s
- 4.2.16: 242s
- 4.2.17: 40s
- 4.2.18: 73s
- 4.2.19: 472s
- 4.2.20: 133s
- 4.2.21: 183s
- 4.2.22: 975s
- 4.2.3: 63s
- 4.2.4: 71s
- 4.2.5: 52s
- 4.2.6: 36s
- 4.2.7: 152s
- 4.2.8: 84s
- 4.2.9: 56s
- **Range:** 32s → 975s (2946.9% variance)
--- ---
@ -71,13 +185,51 @@ The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
**Fastest Languages by Run:** **Fastest Languages by Run:**
4.2.0: ocaml, tcl, elixir, csharp, cobol
4.2.10: bash, powershell, erlang, ruby, typescript
4.2.11: cpp, forth, lua, typescript, ruby
4.2.12: erlang, php, python, javascript, haskell
4.2.13: haskell, v, groovy, nim, kotlin
4.2.14: go, cpp, powershell, erlang, typescript
4.2.15: cobol, csharp, ocaml, objc, kotlin
4.2.16: cpp, c, raku, awk, groovy
4.2.17: objc, python, erlang, csharp, perl
4.2.18: scheme, tcl, fortran, c, raku
4.2.19: dart, python, typescript, javascript, dotnet
4.2.20: crystal, v, deno, r, csharp 4.2.20: crystal, v, deno, r, csharp
4.2.21: erlang, r, ruby, awk, typescript 4.2.21: erlang, r, ruby, awk, typescript
4.2.22: powershell, clojure, scheme, objc, v
4.2.3: v, d, kotlin, awk, raku
4.2.4: c, d, cobol, raku, v
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
4.2.9: d, julia, csharp, v, objc
**Slowest Languages by Run:** **Slowest Languages by Run:**
4.2.0: raku, javascript, cpp, rust, go
4.2.10: scheme, clojure, deno, c, julia
4.2.11: deno, awk, erlang, elixir, clojure
4.2.12: go, crystal, groovy, deno, awk
4.2.13: deno, raku, awk, cpp, java
4.2.14: javascript, python, php, bash, elixir
4.2.15: d, cpp, ruby, bash, lua
4.2.16: javascript, clojure, crystal, lua, fsharp
4.2.17: ruby, typescript, php, cobol, commonlisp
4.2.18: r, go, elixir, rust, forth
4.2.19: lua, perl, java, ruby, powershell
4.2.20: java, zig, cobol, perl, haskell 4.2.20: java, zig, cobol, perl, haskell
4.2.21: nim, dart, java, cpp, rust 4.2.21: nim, dart, java, cpp, rust
4.2.22: javascript, r, nim, zig, lua
4.2.3: rust, c, python, typescript, javascript
4.2.4: python, javascript, elixir, scheme, bash
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
4.2.9: ruby, deno, rust, crystal, java
**Conclusion:** No consistent "fast" or "slow" languages across runs. This proves: **Conclusion:** No consistent "fast" or "slow" languages across runs. This proves:
- Execution order is random or system-dependent - Execution order is random or system-dependent
@ -159,25 +311,25 @@ If concurrency was fixed at N parallel jobs:
### Most Variable Languages ### Most Variable Languages
COBOL: 62s → 198s (+219.4%) JAVASCRIPT: 32s → 2173s (+6690.6%)
AWK: 33s → 145s (+339.4%) R: 24s → 1834s (+7541.7%)
NIM: 103s → 215s (+108.7%) NIM: 31s → 1217s (+3825.8%)
TYPESCRIPT: 39s → 138s (+253.8%) ZIG: 32s → 1014s (+3068.8%)
CPP: 107s → 204s (+90.7%) LUA: 32s → 975s (+2946.9%)
PERL: 104s → 191s (+83.7%) RUBY: 30s → 825s (+2650.0%)
BASH: 104s → 186s (+78.8%) HASKELL: 21s → 754s (+3490.5%)
DART: 127s → 208s (+63.8%) PERL: 26s → 468s (+1700.0%)
RAKU: 83s → 154s (+85.5%) DART: 28s → 451s (+1510.7%)
FORTH: 73s → 142s (+94.5%) JAVA: 33s → 423s (+1181.8%)
These languages are most affected by resource contention. Likely reasons: These languages are most affected by resource contention. Likely reasons:
@ -230,26 +382,26 @@ Keep it as-is for stress testing, but in separate test environment.
| Language | Min (s) | Max (s) | Avg (s) | Range (s) | Variance % | | Language | Min (s) | Max (s) | Avg (s) | Range (s) | Variance % |
|----------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|------------| |----------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|------------|
| AWK | 33 | 145 | 89.0 | 112 | 339.4% | | R | 24 | 1834 | 194.9 | 1810 | 7541.7% |
| ERLANG | 22 | 79 | 50.5 | 57 | 259.1% | | JAVASCRIPT | 32 | 2173 | 217.6 | 2141 | 6690.6% |
| TYPESCRIPT | 39 | 138 | 88.5 | 99 | 253.8% | | NIM | 31 | 1217 | 133.0 | 1186 | 3825.8% |
| COBOL | 62 | 198 | 130.0 | 136 | 219.4% | | HASKELL | 21 | 754 | 125.5 | 733 | 3490.5% |
| RUBY | 30 | 89 | 59.5 | 59 | 196.7% | | DOTNET | 5 | 176 | 85.6 | 171 | 3420.0% |
| R | 24 | 57 | 40.5 | 33 | 137.5% | | ZIG | 32 | 1014 | 161.8 | 982 | 3068.8% |
| V | 56 | 121 | 88.5 | 65 | 116.1% | | LUA | 32 | 975 | 158.1 | 943 | 2946.9% |
| CSHARP | 58 | 123 | 90.5 | 65 | 112.1% | | RUBY | 30 | 825 | 162.7 | 795 | 2650.0% |
| NIM | 103 | 215 | 159.0 | 112 | 108.7% | | CLOJURE | 14 | 310 | 105.4 | 296 | 2114.3% |
| JAVASCRIPT | 42 | 87 | 64.5 | 45 | 107.1% | | SCHEME | 15 | 320 | 100.0 | 305 | 2033.3% |
| PYTHON | 43 | 88 | 65.5 | 45 | 104.7% | | PERL | 26 | 468 | 109.2 | 442 | 1700.0% |
| FORTH | 73 | 142 | 107.5 | 69 | 94.5% | | POWERSHELL | 14 | 247 | 82.9 | 233 | 1664.3% |
| CPP | 107 | 204 | 155.5 | 97 | 90.7% | | GROOVY | 23 | 393 | 94.1 | 370 | 1608.7% |
| C | 76 | 144 | 110.0 | 68 | 89.5% | | CRYSTAL | 24 | 397 | 113.8 | 373 | 1554.2% |
| RAKU | 83 | 154 | 118.5 | 71 | 85.5% | | DART | 28 | 451 | 107.6 | 423 | 1510.7% |
| PERL | 104 | 191 | 147.5 | 87 | 83.7% | | ELIXIR | 20 | 313 | 116.8 | 293 | 1465.0% |
| BASH | 104 | 186 | 145.0 | 82 | 78.8% | | COBOL | 20 | 305 | 109.6 | 285 | 1425.0% |
| FSHARP | 73 | 125 | 99.0 | 52 | 71.2% | | PYTHON | 19 | 253 | 89.7 | 234 | 1231.6% |
| DART | 127 | 208 | 167.5 | 81 | 63.8% | | AWK | 23 | 306 | 121.0 | 283 | 1230.4% |
| CRYSTAL | 49 | 76 | 62.5 | 27 | 55.1% | | CSHARP | 20 | 266 | 92.9 | 246 | 1230.0% |
--- ---
@ -304,8 +456,27 @@ Individual Reports → Aggregation Script → Chart Generation (via UN) → Fina
### Data Sources ### Data Sources
**Input Files:** **Input Files:**
- `reports/4.2.0/perf.json` - 642 tests, generated 2026-01-18T23:20:51Z
- `reports/4.2.10/perf.json` - 673 tests, generated 2026-01-23T11:46:18Z
- `reports/4.2.11/perf.json` - 669 tests, generated 2026-01-23T12:14:08Z
- `reports/4.2.12/perf.json` - 665 tests, generated 2026-01-23T13:30:32Z
- `reports/4.2.13/perf.json` - 673 tests, generated 2026-01-23T14:19:49Z
- `reports/4.2.14/perf.json` - 661 tests, generated 2026-01-23T14:48:26Z
- `reports/4.2.15/perf.json` - 657 tests, generated 2026-01-23T15:14:36Z
- `reports/4.2.16/perf.json` - 665 tests, generated 2026-01-23T15:25:53Z
- `reports/4.2.17/perf.json` - 665 tests, generated 2026-01-23T15:34:55Z
- `reports/4.2.18/perf.json` - 665 tests, generated 2026-01-23T16:05:03Z
- `reports/4.2.19/perf.json` - 701 tests, generated 2026-01-23T20:20:06Z
- `reports/4.2.20/perf.json` - 685 tests, generated 2026-01-23T20:41:23Z - `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/4.2.21/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/4.2.3/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
- `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
- `reports/4.2.9/perf.json` - 645 tests, generated 2026-01-23T10:05:34Z
Each `perf.json` contains: Each `perf.json` contains:
@ -502,5 +673,5 @@ For questions about this methodology or to report issues:
--- ---
**Generated by UN Inception Performance Analysis Pipeline** **Generated by UN Inception Performance Analysis Pipeline**
**Analysis Date:** 2026-01-23T16:21:28.533747 **Analysis Date:** 2026-01-24T12:58:26.732493
**Report Version:** 1.0.0 **Report Version:** 1.0.0