1210505 - perfherder compare view usually requires a series of links when filing bugs due to e10s, etc.

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1187000

(Tree Management :: Perfherder, defect)

Description

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

right now compare view is e10s or non e10s, I would like to reduce this confusion and find a way to get ALL the data on one page.

A few thoughts:
1) with pgo/non-pgo we have too much data to scroll through
2) adding e10s will make it even more confusing
3) we should find ways to collapse the data and only show the differences
4) Ideally a sorted view of all regressions/improvements >2% at the top, the rest of the test topics can be discovered via scrolling.

Comment 1

[Avi Halachmi (:avih)]

I like the idea of filtering by change>2% (if the user wants to), and IMO on the vast majority of cases it would be more than enough to reduce the page length to a very reasonable one.

As for sorting by severity, while I agree there's some value in that, I think there might be better ways to group the data.

Our current "arrangement" is by [test-name x build-config x runtime-config] (e.g. tsvgx - opt - e10s), where for each such group we list all the platforms/OSs.

However, IMO any one of test-name/build-config/runtime-config/platform/OS is a good candidate to group by, and each such grouping has the potential to expose the very useful "common things for all the regressions here" (e.g. all of them are PGO, or all of them are non-e10s, or all of them are tsvgx, or all of them are Win8-64, etc).

So other than the 2% filtering (which should pass both improvements and regressions), which is likely to bring the list to a very reasonable size, I think the most generic approach would be to allow custom grouping by the groups I mentioned above, possibly cascading (first by platform, then within each platform by test-name, etc).

Comment 2

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

The group by field is a good idea, maybe a table where we can sort by different fields?  defaults to sorting by platform?

if we default to only showing 2% improvements/regressions, we could have a checkbox/link to show all for the strong willed.

Comment 3

[William Lachance (:wlach)]

We discussed this a bit in bug 1187000.

I plan on working on some kind of filtering interface for compare perf soon.

Comment 4

[William Lachance (:wlach)]

We now show e10s information by default in the compare view, with a smart filtering interface.