at least he/she will find
>> the tickets in Jira.
>>
>>
>>
>> De: Donal Evans
>> Enviado: jueves, 23 de enero de 2020 16:45
>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
>> Asunto: Re: Old geode-benchmark PRs
>>
>> @Alexander, I haven
o de 2020 16:45
> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
> Asunto: Re: Old geode-benchmark PRs
>
> @Alexander, I haven't looked at them in months and they never received any
> formal review on GitHub, so it's hard to know for sure if they're ready to
> merge or not, but as Jake said, they p
Para: dev@geode.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Old geode-benchmark PRs
@Alexander, I haven't looked at them in months and they never received any
formal review on GitHub, so it's hard to know for sure if they're ready to
merge or not, but as Jake said, they probably need some massaging to g
@Alexander, I haven't looked at them in months and they never received any
formal review on GitHub, so it's hard to know for sure if they're ready to
merge or not, but as Jake said, they probably need some massaging to get
the resource usage just right and minimize variance. If at this point
there'
Donal, are you still looking at these? If they aren't ready to merge and
not being worked on, should they be closed?
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:32 PM Donal Evans wrote:
> Two of those PRs are mine, so perhaps I can give a bit of context for
> people who might look at them. The oldest of the two,
I hate to just close what’s there but it also likely needs some massaging.
Additions to the benchmarks risk destabilizing the CI if the benchmark has a
wide variance. I don’t have time right now to spend on tuning new benchmarks.
If someone else does please step up and take it on.
> On Jan 22,
Two of those PRs are mine, so perhaps I can give a bit of context for
people who might look at them. The oldest of the two, "Feature/Add PdxType
benchmark and additional framework flexibility" was an attempt to quantify
and maintain the improvement in performance for PdxType creation when large
num
