Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
94 lines (63 loc) · 2.87 KB

readme.md

File metadata and controls

94 lines (63 loc) · 2.87 KB
Raw

Purpose

Compare composer installation times with and without the prestissimo plugin.

Considerations

  • We aim to have tests between environments with and without the plugin be consitent
  • Composer's built in cache needs to be considered
  • Everything is reproducible and tweakable — all assumptions should be evident

Networking Caveat

The hardest assumption to deal with is the network.

Testing network heavy code is tricky – especially when interacting with public networks. The approach here is admidtely a little naive, small sample sizes and an optimistic assumption that network responses are stable across runs undermines the empirical value of this test suite.

There is probably a way to remove these problems from the testing but I'll dispense with that for now — I only have time to do a "thoughtful glance" test.

Running the tests

Requirements

  • *nix enivornment with bash installed
  • Vagrant (built using 1.9.2)
  • VirtualBox (built using 5.1.10)

Assuming those are met clone the repo and run:

./test-prestissmo.sh

Everything happens inside the VM.

Summary

The numbers in raw-results.md indicate the prestissmo plugin should make installing frameworks reliably faster

Scenario 1

Installs a large framework using create-project.

  • create project: 0m55.531s vs. 0m47.719s
    • 7.82 seconds faster (1.16×)
  • install: 1m43.844s vs. 0m9.205s
    • 94.639 seconds faster (11.28×)

Notice how most of the speed increase occurs when resolving the framework dependencies.

Scenario 2

Installing last and current versions of popular frameworks. Assume that some dependencies will hit composer's cache, showing slightly more real-world timing as certain packages are organically cached locally.

Comparisions (in order)

  • Magento 2.1.5: 2m41.910s vs. 0m55.682s
    • 106.228 seconds faster (2.9×)
  • Magento 2.1.6: 1m5.129s vs. 0m53.151s
    • 11.978 seconds faster (1.22×)
  • Laravel 5.3: 1m54.431s vs. 0m48.737s
  • Laravel 5.4: 0m29.506s vs. 0m16.867s
  • Symfomy 2: 0m47.271s vs 0m14.129s
  • Symfomy 3: 0m22.736s vs 0m13.836s

Scenario 3

To make it more explicit consecutive installs of the same packages will expereince less of a speed-up since they will be available locally.

  • First run: 2m36.796s vs. 0m53.840s
    • 102.956 seconds faster (2.9×)
  • Second run: 0m41.479s vs. 0m42.389s
    • 0.91 seconds slower (0.97×)
  • Third run: 0m38.687s vs. 0m41.153s
    • 2.466 seconds slower (0.94×)

With a fully warmed cache it's clear that the plugin does add nominal overhead.

Synopsis

As stated these numbers aren't airtight but indicative of possible outcomes.

Annectodatley I can say the plugin makes day to day composer usage feel snappier and after months of usage I haven't encountered a single issue — it's a stable piece of software.

My recommendation: use the plugin!