Closed Bug 374532 Opened 13 years ago Closed 12 years ago
[meta] Improve performance (as measured by memory use, transactional speed and Ts) of bookmark and history storage and retrieval operations
This is a tracking bug for item PLCS-005a in the Firefox 3 PRD.
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 3 alpha6
We need some good metrics to act as measures of success, here. Any ideas?
Flags: blocking-firefox3? → blocking-firefox3+
Ben Hearsum has created builds for no-Places, Places-history and Places-history+bookmarks. Alice and Rob said they'd be able run these builds under the new performance testing framework, the results of which should be able to give us data for memory use, ts, tp. We may need to implement a separate test to target transactional speed of specific operations.
retargeting bugs that don't meet the alpha release-blocker criteria at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Schedule.
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 alpha6 → Firefox 3 beta1
from Alice: Using those builds I ran the tests last night. Each build was tested four times with the results posted to the graph server. http://graphs.mozilla.org/graph.html http://graphs.mozilla.org/dgraph.html The machines are called qm-pxp03-GP-A5-*. The comparison of load times is here: http://graphs.mozilla.org/graph.html#spst=range&spstart=1183068341&spend=1183102872&bpst=cursor&bpstart=1183068341&bpend=1183102872&m1tid=2082&m1bl=0&m1avg=0&m2tid=2092&m2bl=0&m2avg=0&m3tid=2102&m3bl=0&m3avg=0 The comparison of ts times is here: http://graphs.mozilla.org/graph.html#spst=range&spstart=1183068341&spend=1183102872&bpst=cursor&bpstart=1183068341&bpend=1183102872&m1tid=2081&m1bl=0&m1avg=0&m2tid=2091&m2bl=0&m2avg=0&m3tid=2101&m3bl=0&m3avg=0 The numbers aren't all that consistent, so it might be worth doing more runs to get a larger test set. On the plus side, I'm not seeing much difference at all in memory usage for the three builds.
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 M7 → Firefox 3 M8
> The numbers aren't all that consistent, so it might be worth doing more > runs to get a larger test set. They are mostly within a percentage point apart, which seems normal relative to the fluctuations on some of our tinderboxen. I put all the Ts and pageload runs from 7/3 - 7/5 in a spreadsheet, and got the mean for both Places-Bookmarks and non-Places, and then calculated the percentage difference: http://spreadsheets4.google.com/ccc?key=pwYmMOzoFPJU3MSzrHmwoFg&hl=en These numbers show a 2+% regression in both Ts and Tp. (Though, please take a look and see if there are any mathematical errors.) 1. These numbers are trunk vs trunk, not Fx2 vs Fx3. This was the only way to reasonably test Places specifically. 2. This was done with an empty profile, the same as our current Ts and Tp tests. We'd like to do a run of Fx2 vs Fx3 with large history and bookmarks sets at some point, but again that tests the whole app, not Places in particular.
Discussed this with schrep, and I'm going to call this complete (measured against the PRD requirement). While there is a small (~2%) hit with an empty profile, in the real world with real history and bookmark sets its my understanding that we're faster across the board, especially where the old history impl hits the wall on performance. I'm not saying there isn't room to tune and tweak performance, but the point of the requirement was to improve history performance for end users, and I believe we've hit that goal already (as evidenced by our ability to bump the history expiration default 20x).
> I'm going to call this complete I feel uncomfortable calling this complete. 2% hit for an empty profile is good, I agree. I think both dietrich and I were surprised it was so small. (kudos to the original places team, who I think deserve the credit there.) here are my concerns: 1) "with real history and bookmark sets its my understanding that we're faster across the board". There are definitely specific cases (example, the history menu) where we're faster than fx 2. but we haven't done full apples-to-apples with real world history and bookmarks (not sure what's good here) memory measurements and performance wall clock tests on a target machine. 2) "as evidenced by our ability to bump the history expiration default 20x" we've bumped to 180 days, but I think that needs to come way down. see bug #332748 for a discussion of this issue. a user could hit some serious performance issues with a large places.sqlite as soon as they are bigger than the cache size we specify (see bug #394079 for a discussion of this issue.)
Needs more verification, not clear whether we need more work here, gut feeling is still no.
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 M8 → Firefox 3 M9
Pushing to M10. There's still no clear "apples to apples" comparison between Fx3 and Fx2.
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 M9 → Firefox 3 M10
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 M10 → Firefox 3 M11
We should be able to get some numbers on transactional speed on branch, and then on trunk with a large places db, for some basic activities: - history menu query - add a folder - add a bookmark (with various properties, eg keyword, description) - remove a bookmark etc.
Assignee: dietrich → ondrej
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 beta3 → Firefox 3 beta4
I'm not sure if it makes sense to prepare a big test case, which would compare performance between Fx2 and Fx3 at this moment. This would take definitely some time and would become obsolete after Fx3 release. At the moment we have quite a lot performance related bugs. I suggest first fixing them, and only afterwards if there is still time and we still have complains that places are slow to build a comparison test: Marked as blocking: Bug 385245 history sidebar very slow Bug 364272 Ts performance regression on 12/15/06 from enabling places ... Bug 399566 Bookmarks and History menus open slower than other menus every time Bug 405765 Opening folder in the right pane of the Places Organizer is slow Not marked as blocking: Bug 416988 Backup of bookmarks to HTML on shutdown does too many queries Bug 417262 History sidebar slow for "By Most Visited" and "By Last Visited" Bug 417729 Livemark refreshing inefficient Bug 418166 Long sqlite database shutdown times + 100 % CPU on browser exit Bug 409723 when clearing all history, can we avoid calling FindVisits()? Bug 412758 Erase functions in nsNavHistoryExpire iterate all ... Bug 390614 Split up the "Older than 6 days" history folder Bug 417042 Moving mouse over bookmark folders in Places Library ...
Summary: Improve performance (as measured by memory use, transactional speed and Ts) of bookmark and history storage and retrieval operations → [meta] Improve performance (as measured by memory use, transactional speed and Ts) of bookmark and history storage and retrieval operations
Target Milestone: Firefox 3 beta4 → Firefox 3
I think we've done a lot of good work here, everything else will need to wait for the next release.
Flags: blocking-firefox3+ → blocking-firefox3-
I'm going through and marking old performance regression bugs as INCOMPLETE that are likely too old to be valid or get any traction on them. Please re-open if you have more information or can demonstrate the regression still exists.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
Bug 451915 - move Firefox/Places bugs to Firefox/Bookmarks and History. Remove all bugspam from this move by filtering for the string "places-to-b-and-h". In Thunderbird 3.0b, you do that as follows: Tools | Message Filters Make sure the correct account is selected. Click "New" Conditions: Body contains places-to-b-and-h Change the action to "Delete Message". Select "Manually Run" from the dropdown at the top. Click OK. Select the filter in the list, make sure "Inbox" is selected at the bottom, and click "Run Now". This should delete all the bugspam. You can then delete the filter. Gerv
Component: Places → Bookmarks & History
QA Contact: places → bookmarks
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.