Talk:Performance tuning

The "Bottlenecks" section

The atricle upto this point is ok - but the section starting:

"In any program performing a task, for any resource, there is a minimum amount of that resource needed to accomplish the task. A bottleneck is any part of the program spending the resource for poor reasons and thus spending more than necessary."

needs a rewrite desperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.19.37 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section is trying to talk about optimising machine code by analysing samples of the instruction pointer and identifying instructions that stall the CPU. Given the article jumps straight from a reasonable description of high level "Performance tuning" to a very specific and badly written explanation of a form of optimisation that you'd only perform after you'd looked at everything else I consider it inappropriate and I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.19.37 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Someone's proposing to delete this article because "this article consists of material on loosely related topics that are covered much better in existing individual articles". I don't care a huge amount but it might be a useful as an overview of performance problems surely? Or is there a page on optimization or something that this should redirect to? Anyway, the message says I can delete it if I object so I'm moving it here, maybe people can argue this on articles for deletion or something. Admittedly the article is in a shoddy state atm and should have this "see main article at blah" links everywhere. Apologies to whoever added the deletion template. GeorgeBills 08:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{dated prod|concern = This article consists of material on loosely related topics that are covered much better in existing individual articles.|month = June|day = 5|year = 2006}}

I've fixed like GeorgeBills suggested; to link to "main articles". I'd like to remove the "quotefarm" tag because I don't really see what the article is quoting, and the person who added the tag didn't bother to explain. Without specific feedback, it's impossible to address the tag. -- Mikeblas 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I removed the tags and the extras at the end of the article. JonHarder 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe "quotefarm" was there because of the "performance tuning" paragraph at the bottom of the article. Right now, Performance tuning redirects to this article. Should we make this article "Performance tuning", move that paragraph towards the top, then have Performance problem redirect to the new Performance tuning? -- Mikeblas 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made "performance tuning" into a section. I don't see a particular advantage of swapping the article and redirect. I'm still not really convinced this article is necessary or really adds anything to the encyclopedia. It's looking better now though! JonHarder 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can articulate your concerns, maybe we can address them. I proposed "flipping" the article because "performance problem" doesn't make much sense to me, but "performance tuning" does. "Performance tuning" redirects to "optimization", which as this article demonstrates, is only one part of the practice. The text of that section reads like it was its own article, as if it had been merged from somewhere else. Putting that text at the top delivers context and makes it easy to frame the other technques. -- Mikeblas 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean and that makes a lot of sense. It would give this article a sharper direction. There are a number of articles that link to Performance tuning and they may offer additional ideas of what to include here. Thanks for your attention to this article. I now support the direction you propose. JonHarder 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cleanup! :) Cwolfsheep 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. Performance tuning and Performance problem will actually be swapped since the current Performance tuning has a non-trivial pre-merge edit history. Feel free to rewrite or split either article after the swap. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Performance problem → Performance tuning … Rationale: The new title defines the scope of the article much better and is more standard terminology. A recent discussion concluded this renaming to "Performance tuning" would make more sense than the current title. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Performance problem. —JonHarder 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support JonHarder 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mikeblas 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, this does not make sense with the present article. The section on performance tuning is rightly so called, but it would be wrong for the rest of the article. Septentrionalis 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And rewrite the article to better establish that this is what it is about. Vegaswikian 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I think I articulated my opinion best in my comment of 02:03, 6 June 2006 above. Performance Problem is renamed, content intact, to Performance Tuning. Optimization (computer science) is merged into Performance Tuning, and becomes a redirect into the same. (I know we kind of reached that concensus last month, but I got busy, and distracted, and so on. If we can all agree on what to do, I'm happy to help execute.) -- Mikeblas 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make more sense to move the paragraph out, and have performance tuning as a separate article? Septentrionalis 01:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-swap

BTW, now that the swap is done, things which were linking to this article are now linking to Performance problem which is a redirect to Optimization (computer science). Things which were linking to that redirect are now linking to here. Since these all seem interconnected to me, I'll leave it up to y'all to sort out what you want linking to what - I've made no other edits outside of the swap itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the linking and relinked to the appropriate articles. The remaining links all have to do with the organizational development meaning, so I am going to change "Performance problem" to redirect to Performance problem (organizational development). I don't believe that should be a controversial move and will allow removing the tag about the similar names from the top of this article. JonHarder 18:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]