Skip to content

Conversation

@ian-r-rose
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #249

@ian-r-rose ian-r-rose requested a review from jrbourbeau August 16, 2022 17:06
Copy link
Contributor

@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @ian-r-rose! It's not totally clear to me how this relates to #249. This appears to be about having enough previous runs to compare to. Is decreased memory usage / wall time still treated as a regression, or am I missing something?

@ian-r-rose
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is decreased memory usage / wall time still treated as a regression, or am I missing something?

I believe that it is not treated as a regression (that is to say, it's correct right now). The issue here was just that there was not enough history in the timeseries to actually make a decent measure of a regression.

Copy link
Contributor

@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's give it a try then 👍

@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau merged commit 73383af into main Aug 16, 2022
@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau deleted the ensure-enough-data-for-regression branch August 16, 2022 18:16
@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ignore decreases in memory usage / wall time in regression detection

3 participants