Agree. Anything that's meant to increase performance should demonstrate it actually does that. We have microbench available in recent versions - writing a new microbenchmark isn't all that onerous. Would be great if we had perf tests included in the normal testall/dtest workflow for ALL patches so we could quickly spot regressions, but that gets pretty expensive in terms of running long enough tests to actually see most common code paths.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > I'd like to discuss what I consider to be a pretty important matter - > patches which are written for the sole purpose of improving performance > without including a single performance benchmark in the JIRA. > > My original email was in "Testing and Jira Tickets", i'll copy it here > for posterity: > > If you don't mind, I'd like to broaden the discussion a little bit to also > discuss performance related patches. For instance, CASSANDRA-13271 was a > performance / optimization related patch that included *zero* information > on if there was any perf improvement or a regression as a result of the > change, even though I've asked twice for that information. > > In addition to "does this thing break anything" we should be asking "how > does this patch affect performance?" (and were the appropriate docs > included, but that's another topic altogether) > > There's a minor note about perf related stuff here: > http://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/ > testing.html#performance-testing > > > "Performance tests for Cassandra are a special breed of tests that are not > part of the usual patch contribution process. In fact you can contribute > tons of patches to Cassandra without ever running performance tests. They > are important however when working on performance improvements, as such > improvements must be measurable." > > I think performance numbers aren't just important, but should be a > *requirement* to merge a performance patch. > > Thoughts? > Jon >
