Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 368937 - [performance] Performance regression in WorkspacePerformaneTests#testCreateResources
Summary: [performance] Performance regression in WorkspacePerformaneTests#testCreateRe...
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Resources (show other bugs)
Version: 3.8   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 7
: P3 major (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.8 M5   Edit
Assignee: Platform-Resources-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 348419
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2012-01-18 06:21 EST by Satyam Kandula CLA
Modified: 2012-01-22 23:46 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Satyam Kandula CLA 2012-01-18 06:21:01 EST 
There is a ~50% performance regression in WorkspacePerformaneTests#testCreateResources, WorkspacePerformanceTests#testDeleteProject() and WorkspacePerformanceTests#testFolderCopy. 

It is noticeable only on windows machine and seems to have started after 10th Jan.
Comment 1 Dani Megert CLA 2012-01-18 06:41:48 EST 
Setting to 'major' since 50% is huge.
Comment 2 John Arthorne CLA 2012-01-18 13:10:12 EST 
I'm not seeing any build with performance test results available. Where are you finding this number?
Comment 3 Satyam Kandula CLA 2012-01-18 23:13:05 EST 
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm not seeing any build with performance test results available. Where are you
> finding this number?
There was a problem with the performance results getting generated. Kim had fixed this issue. You could see the results now. BTW, I got the numbers by directly connecting to the DB.
Comment 4 Szymon Brandys CLA 2012-01-19 09:07:59 EST 
I see the perf test results now. Kim, could we re-run these tests to make sure that the regression is real, not a test machine problem as John suggested in bug 368935, comment 2.
Comment 5 Satyam Kandula CLA 2012-01-22 23:46:33 EST 
Performance results for N20120121-2000 are good. Hence, resolving. The degradation could have been noise.