4.2 KiB
Performance Report: 4.2.46
Generated: 2026-01-29T20:46:47Z Pipeline: #13574
Summary
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Tests | 860 |
| Passed | 802 |
| Failed | 58 |
| Pass Rate | 93.2% |
| Languages | 43 |
| Avg Duration | 224s |
| Slowest | raku (344s) |
| Fastest | prolog (112s) |
API Health
Tracks transient errors encountered during test execution. Tests retry on failures to ensure accurate results.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Health Score | 0/100 |
| Total Retries | 146 |
| Rate Limit (429) | 0 |
| Server Error (5xx) | 146 |
| Timeout | 0 |
| Connection | 0 |
| Tests Needing Retries | 98 |
Interpretation:
- Score 95-100: API is healthy, minimal transient errors
- Score 80-94: Some API instability, but tests recovered via retry
- Score < 80: Significant API issues affecting test reliability
Test Duration by Language
The primary performance metric - how long each language takes to run its full test suite (15 tests per language).
Key observations:
- RAKU and POWERSHELL are outliers at 90+ seconds
- Most languages cluster between 20-40 seconds
- Compiled languages (red) tend to be faster than interpreted (blue)
- PROLOG is the fastest at 112 seconds
Compiled vs Interpreted
Comparing performance between compiled languages (C, Go, Rust, etc.) and interpreted languages (Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.).
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.
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 (raku, powershell)
Speed Leaders
Side-by-side comparison of the 10 slowest and 10 fastest languages.
Slowest (left): RAKU, POWERSHELL, RUST, COMMONLISP, LUA Fastest (right): PROLOG, TYPESCRIPT, TCL, CLOJURE, OBJC
Queue vs Execution Time
Scatter plot showing the relationship between CI queue wait time and actual test execution time.
Notes:
- Queue time is how long the job waited for a runner
- Most jobs had similar queue times (clustered vertically)
- Outliers labeled - raku and powershell took longest to execute regardless of queue time
Dashboard
Summary dashboard combining key metrics and visualizations.
Raw Data
Per-Language Performance
| Language | Status | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| raku | Failed | 344s |
| powershell | Failed | 341s |
| rust | Failed | 330s |
| commonlisp | Failed | 326s |
| lua | Failed | 323s |
| ocaml | Failed | 276s |
| awk | Failed | 275s |
| groovy | Failed | 274s |
| zig | Failed | 272s |
| bash | Passed | 268s |
| elixir | Failed | 268s |
| deno | Failed | 268s |
| perl | Failed | 267s |
| ruby | Passed | 261s |
| php | Failed | 257s |
| go | Failed | 251s |
| java | Failed | 248s |
| scheme | Failed | 242s |
| julia | Failed | 234s |
| fsharp | Passed | 226s |
| erlang | Failed | 224s |
| dart | Failed | 221s |
| cpp | Passed | 219s |
| cobol | Failed | 210s |
| kotlin | Failed | 206s |
| d | Passed | 202s |
| nim | Passed | 201s |
| v | Passed | 199s |
| crystal | Passed | 199s |
| r | Failed | 199s |
| javascript | Failed | 197s |
| python | Passed | 196s |
| fortran | Passed | 191s |
| c | Failed | 186s |
| haskell | Passed | 174s |
| csharp | Failed | 150s |
| dotnet | Failed | 148s |
| forth | Failed | 142s |
| objc | Failed | 141s |
| clojure | Failed | 141s |
| tcl | Failed | 117s |
| typescript | Failed | 115s |
| prolog | Passed | 112s |
Report generated by UN Inception CI pipeline