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 <doev...@pivotal.io> 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, "Feature/Add PdxType
> benchmark and additional framework flexibility" was an attempt to quantify
> and maintain the improvement in performance for PdxType creation when large
> numbers of PdxTypes already exist, and to allow the passing of additional
> system properties to the VMs hosting the servers in order to change the log
> level and prevent the benchmark measuring how long it takes to log PdxType
> creation rather than actual time taken to create new PdxTypes. This PR has
> been open for a very long time, so it's possible that the changes regarding
> passing additional system properties to the VMs are now outdated or
> unnecessary, but the actual benchmarks themselves still have some value.
>
> The second PR, "Added benchmarks for aggregate functions" contains 16 new
> benchmarks related to aggregate OQL queries, (8 each for Partitioned and
> Replicated regions), which were added following work in that area by the
> Commons team. The build is currently marked as failing, but this is due to
> a timeout rather than an actual build failure, as the number of benchmarks
> added increased the total time to build beyond the currently configured
> timeout. Adding such a large number of additional benchmarks will probably
> also noticeably increase the time it takes benchmarks to run, which bears
> consideration.
>
> I hope this helps shed some light for people who may look over those PRs.
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:36 AM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed we have some old outstanding PRs for the geode-benchmarks
> > project. Are any of these things we want to merge or should we close them
> > out?
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pulls
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>

Reply via email to