# Performance Report: 4.2.11 **Generated:** 2026-01-23T12:14:08Z **Pipeline:** [#12103](https://git.unturf.com/engineering/unturf/un-inception/-/pipelines/12103) ## Summary | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Total Tests | 669 | | Passed | 669 | | Failed | 0 | | Pass Rate | 100.0% | | Languages | 43 | | Avg Duration | 103s | | Slowest | deno (289s) | | Fastest | cpp (43s) | --- ## Test Duration by Language The primary performance metric - how long each language takes to run its full test suite (15 tests per language). ![Duration by Language](chart-duration-by-language.png) **Key observations:** - **DENO** and **AWK** are outliers at 90+ seconds - Most languages cluster between 20-40 seconds - Compiled languages (red) tend to be faster than interpreted (blue) - **CPP** is the fastest at 43 seconds --- ## Compiled vs Interpreted Comparing performance between compiled languages (C, Go, Rust, etc.) and interpreted languages (Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.). ![Category Comparison](chart-category-comparison.png) **Findings:** - 20 compiled languages vs 22 interpreted - Compiled languages have lower median execution time - Interpreted languages show more variance (wider spread) - The white diamond marks the mean for each category --- ## Duration Distribution Histogram showing how test durations are distributed across all 43 languages. ![Duration Histogram](chart-duration-histogram.png) **Distribution analysis:** - Most languages complete in 20-35 seconds (the peak) - Mean (green dashed) and median (blue dotted) are close together - Long tail on the right from slow outliers (deno, awk) --- ## Speed Leaders Side-by-side comparison of the 10 slowest and 10 fastest languages. ![Speed Leaders](chart-speed-leaders.png) **Slowest (left):** DENO, AWK, ERLANG, ELIXIR, CLOJURE **Fastest (right):** CPP, FORTH, LUA, BASH, PERL --- ## Queue vs Execution Time Scatter plot showing the relationship between CI queue wait time and actual test execution time. ![Queue vs Execution](chart-queue-vs-execution.png) **Notes:** - Queue time is how long the job waited for a runner - Most jobs had similar queue times (clustered vertically) - Outliers labeled - deno and awk took longest to execute regardless of queue time --- ## Dashboard Summary dashboard combining key metrics and visualizations. ![Dashboard](chart-dashboard.png) --- ## Raw Data ### Per-Language Performance | Language | Status | Duration | |----------|--------|----------| | deno | Passed | 289s | | awk | Passed | 282s | | erlang | Passed | 235s | | elixir | Passed | 228s | | clojure | Passed | 225s | | go | Passed | 177s | | powershell | Passed | 175s | | raku | Passed | 174s | | c | Passed | 174s | | java | Passed | 133s | | kotlin | Passed | 118s | | rust | Passed | 115s | | php | Passed | 108s | | tcl | Passed | 100s | | r | Passed | 95s | | scheme | Passed | 92s | | commonlisp | Passed | 91s | | groovy | Passed | 90s | | crystal | Passed | 90s | | cobol | Passed | 72s | | fortran | Passed | 70s | | d | Passed | 69s | | zig | Passed | 68s | | nim | Passed | 68s | | v | Passed | 67s | | python | Passed | 67s | | objc | Passed | 65s | | dart | Passed | 62s | | prolog | Passed | 61s | | julia | Passed | 61s | | haskell | Passed | 61s | | ocaml | Passed | 60s | | javascript | Passed | 60s | | fsharp | Passed | 59s | | dotnet | Passed | 59s | | csharp | Passed | 59s | | typescript | Passed | 58s | | ruby | Passed | 58s | | perl | Passed | 58s | | bash | Passed | 58s | | lua | Passed | 56s | | forth | Passed | 53s | | cpp | Passed | 43s | --- *Report generated by UN Inception CI pipeline*