Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Proposal] Nest time_ and network_track_ and other <type>_ within results #34

Closed
CodyCBakerPhD opened this issue Mar 4, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@CodyCBakerPhD
Copy link
Collaborator

Currently, in reference to a file like https://github.com/NeurodataWithoutBorders/nwb_benchmarks/blob/main/results/results_timestamp-2024-02-20-01-07-39_machine-e9c0f1370ec8dc3640d91c7d0f381a6d61bd9a46_environment-2d1c68a2c7de02ab2c200e448b250bee5e46f212.json

we have separate JSON entries per benchmarks like

network_tracking_remote_file_reading.FsspecNoCacheDirectFileReadBenchmark.track_network_activity_during_read

and

time_remote_slicing.FsspecNoCacheContinuousSliceBenchmark.time_slice

which functionally have the same setup, and test the same functionality using different methods

It was proposed that it might be more readable / nicer to relate similar tracking results to each other in the results files

I am unsure if it would be better to keep a flat results structure and then add nicer summaries on top of that (which could easily aggregate related fields such as this), or if we do want the results files themselves to be more human-understandable at a glance

@CodyCBakerPhD
Copy link
Collaborator Author

One such aggregation could look like

"FsspecNoCacheDirectFileReadBenchmark": {
  "track_network_activity_during_read": [...],
  "time_slice": [...]
}

@CodyCBakerPhD CodyCBakerPhD changed the title Nest time_ and network_track_ and other <type>_ within results [Proposal] Nest time_ and network_track_ and other <type>_ within results Mar 11, 2024
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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant