# Towards Robust Performance Measurement

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/towards-robust-performance-measurement/11490>\
**Category:** Compiler\
**Tags:** performance, benchmarks\
**Created:** [March 29, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/towards-robust-performance-measurement/11490 "2018-03-29T21:07:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Erik\_Eckstein](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/erik_eckstein/32/320_2.png) [@Erik\_Eckstein](https://forums.swift.org/u/Erik_Eckstein)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/towards-robust-performance-measurement/11490/17 "2018-08-24T03:49:09Z")

</div>

Actually the biggest problem with "noisy" benchmarks was the code alignment problem ([IRGen, benchmarks: add an option -align-module-to-page-size for benchmarking by eeckstein · Pull Request #18318 · apple/swift · GitHub](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/18318)), which is fixed now.

I suggest to see how the new benchmarking method goes ([Improved benchmarking for pull requests](https://forums.swift.org/t/improved-benchmarking-for-pull-requests/15461)) and if there are still noisy benchmarks because of a too long iteration time, lets fix those benchmarks.

Mass-renaming/changing benchmarks creates a lot of burden for our performance tracking and I don't see how we can spend time on working on this.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/towards-robust-performance-measurement/11490)._