Skip to content

Regression due to removal of autoCache #1882

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Anipik opened this issue Dec 14, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Regression due to removal of autoCache #1882

Anipik opened this issue Dec 14, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@Anipik
Copy link
Contributor

Anipik commented Dec 14, 2018

The Auto-cache was removed in 435a63b

I added new benchmark #1855
Before the change the time taken by this benchmark was 2.8sec (after converting to api version and making label as key instead of R4)

After the removal of the cache The time went upto 10s. But after the adding the cache check point me and @wschin was able to reduce it to 3.8s which is still regressed from 2.8s.

@singlis singlis added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 14, 2018
@danmoseley
Copy link
Member

danmoseley commented Dec 14, 2018

@glebuk do you use a particular label or github project to keep together bugs for perf issues? That might be handy.

@Ivanidzo4ka
Copy link
Contributor

This is not regression, this is expected behavior see: #1604

@Zruty0
Copy link
Contributor

Zruty0 commented Dec 14, 2018

Well, @Ivanidzo4ka , I believe that 3.8 vs 2.8 is still some sort of bug: I would expect manual caching to work the same way as the auto-caching used to work.

@codemzs
Copy link
Member

codemzs commented Jun 30, 2019

agree with Ivan here, please provide more details but closing for now.

@codemzs codemzs closed this as completed Jun 30, 2019
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 26, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants