PerfJIT: Test-Level Just-in-Time Prediction for Performance Regression Introducing Commits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance issues may compromise user experiences, increase the cost resources, and cause field failures. One of the most prevalent performance issues is performance regression. Due to the importance and challenges in performance regression detection, prior research proposes various automated approaches that detect performance regressions. However, the performance regression detection is conducted after the system is built and deployed. Hence, large amounts of resources are still required to locate and fix performance regressions. In our paper, we propose an approach that automatically predicts whether a test would manifest performance regressions given a code commit. In particular, we extract both traditional metrics and performance-related metrics from the code changes that are associated with each test. For each commit, we build random forest classifiers that are trained from all prior commits to predict in this commit whether each test would manifest performance regression. We conduct case studies on three open-source systems (Hadoop,Cassandra, andOpenJPA). Our results show that our approach can predict tests that manifest performance regressions in a commit with high AUC values (on average 0.86). Our approach can drastically reduce the testing time needed to detect performance regressions. In addition, we find that our approach could be used to detect the introduction of six out of nine real-life performance issues from the subject systems during our studied period. Finally, we find that traditional metrics that are associated with size and code change histories are the most important factors in our models. Our approach and the study results can be leveraged by practitioners to effectively cope with performance regressions in a timely and proactive manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".