Robert Rohde wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Andrew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> >> To help a bit more with performance, I've also added a profiler within >> the interface itself. Hopefully this will encourage self-policing with >> regard to filter performance. > > Based on personal observations, the self-profiling is quite noisy. > Sometimes a filter will report one value (say 5 ms) only to come back > 5 minutes later and see the same filter report a value 20 times > larger, and a few minutes after that it jumps back down. > > Assuming that this behavior is a result of variations in the filter > workload (and not some sort of profiling bug), it would be useful if > you could increase the profiling window to better average over those > fluctuations. Right now it is hard to tell which rules are slow or > not because the numbers aren't very stable. >
Yes, in one filter (filter 32) I've been watching, it was taking 90-120ms for what seemed like simple checks (action, editcount, difference in bytes), so I moved the editcount check last, in case it had to pull that from the DB. The time dropped to ~3ms, but a couple hours later with no changes to the order and its up to 20ms. Related to this: It would be nice if there was a chart or something comparing how expensive certain variables and functions are. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
