Skip to content

fix: simplify and fix codspeed workflow

6f503da
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
Merged

fix: simplify and fix codspeed workflow #3895

fix: simplify and fix codspeed workflow
6f503da
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
CodSpeed HQ / CodSpeed Performance Analysis failed Apr 9, 2026

Performance Regression: -12.86%

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
❌ 11 regressed benchmarks
✅ 51 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 6 skipped benchmarks1

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
WallTime test_write_array[memory-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-None] 1.6 s 1.2 s +31.81%
WallTime test_write_array[memory-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-gzip] 2.1 s 1.8 s +15.62%
WallTime test_write_array[local-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-None] 2.8 s 2 s +41.08%
WallTime test_write_array[local-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-gzip] 3.2 s 2.5 s +28.81%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(20, 20, 20)] 35.8 ms 41.1 ms -12.86%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(30, 30, 30)] 122.5 ms 138.9 ms -11.77%
WallTime test_sharded_morton_write_single_chunk[(33, 33, 33)-memory] 193.4 ms 218 ms -11.3%
WallTime test_sharded_morton_single_chunk[(32, 32, 32)-memory] 1.8 ms 2 ms -10.11%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(32, 32, 32)] 147.1 ms 167.5 ms -12.16%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(8, 8, 8)] 2.4 ms 2.8 ms -11.84%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(10, 10, 10)] 4.7 ms 5.4 ms -12.08%
WallTime test_sharded_morton_write_single_chunk[(30, 30, 30)-memory] 146.5 ms 162.9 ms -10.08%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(16, 16, 16)] 18.2 ms 20.8 ms -12.47%
WallTime test_morton_order_iter[(33, 33, 33)] 163.9 ms 185.6 ms -11.67%
WallTime test_sharded_morton_write_single_chunk[(32, 32, 32)-memory] 173.6 ms 197.2 ms -11.94%

Comparing d-v-b:fix/fix-benchmark-workflow (6f503da) with main (7c78574)2

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 6 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

  2. No successful run was found on main (9681cf9) during the generation of this report, so 7c78574 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report.