145 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
145 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
# Performance Report: 4.2.3
|
|
|
|
**Generated:** 2026-01-19T11:58:45Z
|
|
**Pipeline:** [#11252](https://git.unturf.com/engineering/unturf/un-inception/-/pipelines/11252)
|
|
|
|
## Summary
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value |
|
|
|--------|-------|
|
|
| Total Tests | 642 |
|
|
| Passed | 642 |
|
|
| Failed | 0 |
|
|
| Pass Rate | 100.0% |
|
|
| Languages | 42 |
|
|
| Avg Duration | 63s |
|
|
| Slowest | rust (142s) |
|
|
| Fastest | v (40s) |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 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:**
|
|
- **RUST** and **C** are outliers at 90+ seconds
|
|
- Most languages cluster between 20-40 seconds
|
|
- Compiled languages (red) tend to be faster than interpreted (blue)
|
|
- **V** is the fastest at 40 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 42 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 (rust, c)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Speed Leaders
|
|
|
|
Side-by-side comparison of the 10 slowest and 10 fastest languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Slowest (left):** RUST, C, PYTHON, TYPESCRIPT, JAVASCRIPT
|
|
**Fastest (right):** V, D, KOTLIN, AWK, RAKU
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 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 - rust and c took longest to execute regardless of queue time
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Dashboard
|
|
|
|
Summary dashboard combining key metrics and visualizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Raw Data
|
|
|
|
### Per-Language Performance
|
|
|
|
| Language | Status | Duration |
|
|
|----------|--------|----------|
|
|
| rust | Passed | 142s |
|
|
| c | Passed | 107s |
|
|
| python | Passed | 78s |
|
|
| typescript | Passed | 75s |
|
|
| javascript | Passed | 75s |
|
|
| ruby | Passed | 74s |
|
|
| go | Passed | 74s |
|
|
| php | Passed | 70s |
|
|
| cpp | Passed | 70s |
|
|
| elixir | Passed | 69s |
|
|
| erlang | Passed | 68s |
|
|
| java | Passed | 67s |
|
|
| perl | Passed | 66s |
|
|
| scheme | Passed | 65s |
|
|
| r | Passed | 64s |
|
|
| clojure | Passed | 64s |
|
|
| lua | Passed | 63s |
|
|
| fortran | Passed | 63s |
|
|
| deno | Passed | 62s |
|
|
| zig | Passed | 61s |
|
|
| tcl | Passed | 61s |
|
|
| crystal | Passed | 61s |
|
|
| cobol | Passed | 61s |
|
|
| groovy | Passed | 60s |
|
|
| commonlisp | Passed | 60s |
|
|
| bash | Passed | 60s |
|
|
| objc | Passed | 58s |
|
|
| julia | Passed | 58s |
|
|
| haskell | Passed | 58s |
|
|
| dart | Passed | 58s |
|
|
| fsharp | Passed | 56s |
|
|
| csharp | Passed | 56s |
|
|
| ocaml | Passed | 55s |
|
|
| forth | Passed | 55s |
|
|
| prolog | Passed | 54s |
|
|
| nim | Passed | 52s |
|
|
| powershell | Passed | 51s |
|
|
| raku | Passed | 50s |
|
|
| awk | Passed | 48s |
|
|
| kotlin | Passed | 45s |
|
|
| d | Passed | 42s |
|
|
| v | Passed | 40s |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*Report generated by UN Inception CI pipeline*
|