On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:17:36 -0800 Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Neels Hofmeyr <ne...@elego.de> wrote: > > (Simply uncommenting now would change the test case and could make > > the new runs too different from the old runs, decreasing quality of > > comparison. So it needs some checking and decisions too.) > > Maybe duplicate the copy test with a different name e.g. copy+wc and > then you'll start getting comparisons with that without impacting the > existing comparisons.
The benchmark initially was just a quick test for me, trying to write down concrete 1.7.0 numbers in a magazine article. So I used a pseudo random sequence that decides which modification to make. Just so I didn't have to conjure up hundreds of modifications manually. Later on, I simply clamped the initial random seed to get identical runs. So if something else happens somewhere along the way, all the remaining actions are impacted, simply because the random sequence plays out differently. I could of course simply *append* actions, now that I think of it :) -- that should be quick and easy, in fact. But I would anyway like to further reduce the number of propset/propget benchmarks, because they just unnecessarily blow up the database storage. That's why I'm considering a "complete" review anyway... ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
