refactor: update benchmark output format, update tables#2703
Open
Jameson-Crate wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
refactor: update benchmark output format, update tables#2703Jameson-Crate wants to merge 3 commits into
Jameson-Crate wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Jameson-Crate
force-pushed
the
stack/benchmarking-table-update
branch
from
a6cf4ae to
e30e722
Compare
Jameson-Crate
changed the title
Benchmark resultsCommit:
|
Jameson-Crate
force-pushed
the
stack/benchmarking-table-update
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c6d42ae to
9069d43
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2703 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.70% 88.70%
=======================================
Files 209 209
Lines 65409 65411 +2
Branches 65409 65411 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 58024 58026 +2
Misses 5170 5170
Partials 2215 2215 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
DrakeLin
reviewed
Jun 5, 2026
| .clone() | ||
| .scan_builder() | ||
| .with_predicate(self.predicate.clone()) | ||
| .with_stats(StatsOptions::all()) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's run it with Struct stats only
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one of our benchmarks explicitly uses json stats though, does that matter?
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DrakeLin shouldn't this be defined in the spec, not the runner?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be at the spec level but for now i am just going to make it test with all_struct which is what we typically see in practice and sufficient from a regression perspective.
scottsand-db
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2026
scottsand-db
left a comment
scottsand-db
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM with some comments, thanks!
| .clone() | ||
| .scan_builder() | ||
| .with_predicate(self.predicate.clone()) | ||
| .with_stats(StatsOptions::all()) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DrakeLin shouldn't this be defined in the spec, not the runner?
Jameson-Crate
force-pushed
the
stack/benchmarking-table-update
branch
from
4586ac1 to
d89fa42
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes are proposed in this pull request?
This PR changes the tables that we benchmark against and includes stats going forward. We also update some formatting such as making the the tests collapsable and adding a benchmark summary and add some emojis to make scanning the benchmark result much easier (🐌 ->⚠️ -> ✅ -> 🚀).
How was this change tested?
Showed that benchmarks can run after pull request. Each scan looks like a regression because the base did not include stats in the scan.