You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now I'm taking the median of 251 runs, but I'm a bit unsatisfied with this because I have not confirmed that 251 is enough to eliminate unreasonable variance, nor does it tell me the standard deviation or any of those niceties. As pointed out in #2 (comment), we should really have a more rigorous benchmark in place, especially as we start to potentially make changes to "improve" performance, which need to be proven to actually improve it.
I looked at benchmark.js but TBH couldn't figure out how to nicely integrate it with the current benchmark design; e.g. currently I request each script with a random query param to force the browser to re-parse and re-evaluate it, and the timings have to be inside the script itself, so it's very tricky to implement.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now I'm taking the median of 251 runs, but I'm a bit unsatisfied with this because I have not confirmed that 251 is enough to eliminate unreasonable variance, nor does it tell me the standard deviation or any of those niceties. As pointed out in #2 (comment), we should really have a more rigorous benchmark in place, especially as we start to potentially make changes to "improve" performance, which need to be proven to actually improve it.
I looked at benchmark.js but TBH couldn't figure out how to nicely integrate it with the current benchmark design; e.g. currently I request each script with a random query param to force the browser to re-parse and re-evaluate it, and the timings have to be inside the script itself, so it's very tricky to implement.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: