Do you avoid reviewing performance without metrics?
18/12/2014 10:55 AM by
If a client says:
"This application is too slow, I don't really want to put up with such poor performance. Please fix."
We don't jump in and look at the code and clean it up and reply with something like:
"I've looked at the code and cleaned it up - not sure if this is suitable - please tell me if you are OK with the performance now."
A better way is:
Figure: Good example – Add some code to check the timing, before fixing any performance issues (An example from SSW Code Auditor)
- Ask the client to tell us how slow it is (in seconds) and how fast they ideally would like it (in seconds)
- Add some code to record the time the function takes to run
- Reproduce the steps and record the time
- Change the code
- Reproduce the steps and record the time again
- Reply to the customer:
"It was 22 seconds, you asked for around 10 seconds. It is now 8 seconds."
This is because performance is an emotional thing, sometimes it just *feels* slower. Without numbers, a person cannot really know for sure whether something has become quicker.
For sample code on how to measure performance for windows application form, please refer to rule
Do you have tests for Performance? on
Rules To Better Unit Tests.
Do you feel this rule needs an update?