Rework UI#838
Conversation
|
|
|
@rotmanjanez I generally like the direction, thanks. Some comments:
Makes sense.
Not a blocker: The (minor) problem here is that if only few databases are selected, the graph is still padded. 
Can the graph height be auto-adjusted or be made configurable via some click-on-the-border-and-drag feature?
This one is a bit more controversial. My main quirk is that the "Additional filters" button is too hard to spot, IMHO. 
Most users will need to click it open because extra filtering is a necessity. So we can show the other filters always (as before), i.e. no filter button.
This reverts #616 and it is the most controversial change :-) I'd say real workloads are a mix of cold and hot runtimes anyways, so "combined" seems a good default choice. Viewers can switch to hot or cold if they like to. Could I ask you to revert this change? Thanks for the PR (you are clearly much better with HTML and JS than me ;-) ) |
this also seems like a more interresting metric, as the other HTMLs did not seem to bother adding the combined few. This suggests that the hot-metric is mostly used and should be the default also here
|
@rschu1ze thanks for the review. Really appreciate it, and agree with most of it.
I am happy to address any other issues or try out suggestions, if you have any. P.S.: I had a university deadline. I am much more available now (hours/days, not weeks ._.). Sorry for the inconvenience. |
This interestingly introduced another slightly annoying behavior. Start with zero selected databases, then add one, e.g. "BigQuery", then add another one, e.g. "ByConity", and another one "CedarDB". Due to auto-resizing, the selector jumps away from the mouse pointer. Also, if all databases are selected, the chart is size-capped and users need to use the scrollbar to see all bars. What do you think about two new buttons below the "Tuned" selector where users can set the height of the chart area. Values can be numeric (1, 2, ... rows) or
There are now two categories with the confusing names "Databases" and "Systems". What about "Databases" and "Database Scenario" (or: "Database Configuration")?
Thanks. Please also update the original PR message above^^. |
4 participants
I regularly look at the ClickBench website, and slowly, the selectors become more and more convoluted, and viewing the actual results becomes more annoying. This is an attempt to fix the UI experience of the online benchmark results websites.
Main Changes:
Databaseselector that buckets the different variations into more easily digestible selectors. The full systems selector is still in a dropdown.hotas their default. The HTML comparing different ClickHouse versions does not even implement thecombinedmetric. It does not seem very important to technical persons, who are likely the main visitors of the page. The first thing I do when I visit clickbench is to change to hot run only, and I know that I am not the only one doing this. I would be interested if anyone that actually uses this site on a regular basis looks at the combined metric and why.I tried to make old links with hashes still work, and from my limited testing, they still work as intended.
I hope you and others like the direction of this PR.