Highlighted
Contributor.
Contributor.
376 views

Getting different response time waiting on the same object

Hi,

We are currently doing performance benchmarking for our application and notice significant response time difference waiting for the same object using different approach.

Approach 1: Click action with an end event set to Object Exists waiting for Object 'A'.
Approach 2: Click action with an end event set to Action Complete, followed by a Wait for Object 'A'.

I would assume the time should be approximate the same regardless of approach 1 and approach 2. But when I switch between different approach, I noticed that approach 1 took 5 seconds more than approach 2. 

This is not acceptable. 

Here I provide the evidence:

Approach 1:
t=00071577ms: ** 1.1: Evaluate JavaScript code Global.TXN_NAME = "TXN" ...lobal.TXN_NAME); ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
Notify: Transaction "TXN04_EPIM_CM005_SEGMENTS_COLLAPSE_ALL_FILTERS" started.
t=00071786ms: ** 1.1: Evaluate JavaScript code Global.TXN_NAME = "TXN" ...lobal.TXN_NAME); ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00071795ms: ** 1: Function startTransaction ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00071799ms: ** 17.2: Call Function GlobalLib.startTransaction ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00072305ms: ** 17.3: Click on Collapse All Filters button ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00107447ms: ** 17.3: Click on Collapse All Filters button ** successfully completed with end event 'Object Exists' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00107464ms: ** 17.8: Call Function GlobalLib.stopTranasction ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00107473ms: ** 2: Function stopTranasction ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00107501ms: ** 2.1: Evaluate JavaScript code // stop the transaction ..._ID = txnId; } ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
Notify: Transaction "TXN04_EPIM_CM005_SEGMENTS_COLLAPSE_ALL_FILTERS" ended with a "Pass" status (Duration: 35.9220 Think Time: 0.0150 Wasted Time: 0.9620).

Approach 2:
t=00071574ms: ** 1.1: Evaluate JavaScript code Global.TXN_NAME = "TXN" ...lobal.TXN_NAME); ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
Notify: Transaction "TXN04_EPIM_CM005_SEGMENTS_COLLAPSE_ALL_FILTERS" started.
t=00071785ms: ** 1.1: Evaluate JavaScript code Global.TXN_NAME = "TXN" ...lobal.TXN_NAME); ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00071811ms: ** 1: Function startTransaction ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00071813ms: ** 17.2: Call Function GlobalLib.startTransaction ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00072320ms: ** 17.3: Click on Collapse All Filters button ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00073049ms: ** 17.3: Click on Collapse All Filters button ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00073051ms: ** 17.4: Wait for Expand All Filters button ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00102394ms: ** 17.4: Wait for Expand All Filters button ** successfully completed with end event 'Action completed' [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00102404ms: ** 17.8: Call Function GlobalLib.stopTranasction ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00102414ms: ** 2: Function stopTranasction ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
t=00102498ms: ** 2.1: Evaluate JavaScript code // stop the transaction ..._ID = txnId; } ** started [MsgId: MMSG-205180]
Notify: Transaction "TXN04_EPIM_CM005_SEGMENTS_COLLAPSE_ALL_FILTERS" ended with a "Pass" status (Duration: 30.9250 Think Time: 0.0720 Wasted Time: 1.0570).

I ran the same test multiple times using different approach and consistently notice the response time difference of 5 seconds. 

We rely on TruClient to give us the correct response time but I am little confused here why would different approach gives different timing when waiting for the same object.

Can someone help clarify this? This is important as we are basing on the response time for our benchmarking.

Thanks!
Jason

 

0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.