I can put a issue in to get JMH setup, remove/port existing tests (we can
hash out what gets ported vs. dropped in the issue), and finally add an
initial perf test for the addV work.  That sound like a good first step?

--Ted

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Jonathan Ellithorpe <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Yup :)
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:40 AM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, i think that's a bit too heavy and coarse grained for our purposes.
> > I was thinking more in terms of micro-benchmarks for our internal use.
> >
> > Btw, Is your implementation such that any TP3 compliant database could
> work
> > with the LDBC?
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Jonathan Ellithorpe <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This might be far more heavy-weight than what you are looking for, but
> > I've
> > > been working on implementing the LDBC Social Network Benchmark for TP3:
> > >
> > > http://ldbcouncil.org/developer/snb
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:28 AM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I had long ago built in a model for doing "performance tests" that
> > used:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/carrotsearch/junit-benchmarks
> > > >
> > > > I thought we would at some point in the future build those out
> further
> > > but
> > > > that hasn't really happened. I'd probably just not worry about them
> at
> > > this
> > > > point, but while talking to Ted about it, I learned that carrotsearch
> > has
> > > > stopped development on their project and are instead directing folks
> to
> > > use
> > > > JMH:
> > > >
> > > > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jmh/
> > > >
> > > > I think we should just consider dropping the carrotsearch tests in
> > light
> > > of
> > > > this - perhaps do a review to see if there are any tests worth moving
> > to
> > > > unit or integration tests.  Then we consider a better model for
> > > performance
> > > > testing with JMH (or something else) going forward.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to