Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
core(byte-efficiency): replace pessimistic graph with optimistic #15651
core(byte-efficiency): replace pessimistic graph with optimistic #15651
Changes from 5 commits
3b3f4fb
43011b0
9c24cf9
7787944
3c710b0
24b39a7
a9464c3
200d672
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now this is surprising. LCP savings should be going down not up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did some investigation using
PageDependencyGraph.printGraph
and here are the results foruses-text-compression
LCP (may want to paste into a different viewer to see better):The most important difference I spotted was that
lighthouse-rotating.gif
is missing from the optimistic graph and yet it is the last node to finish. This means the byte savings on the seconddbw_tester.html
graph shouldn't impact the pessimistic simulation because the seconddbw_tester.html
is downloaded in parallel withlighthouse-rotating.gif
. This just happens to be the way the requests downloaded, and therefore we can't rely on the optimistic graph providing a smaller savings estimate than the pessimistic graph for LCP.That being said, both optimistic and pessimistic LCP graphs cast very wide nets when deciding which network requests to include and that might just make the results kinda noisy. It might be worth looking into a new optimistic LCP definition that focuses on the specific LCP request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Took a look at only a handful of sites, seems like pessimistic savings being lower than optimistic savings only occasionally happens and solely for LCP.
We could:
i'm open to both, though leaning on (1) to prioritize these audits less when sorting.
I agree, worth taking note of this to dive into later
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
adam convinced me of going with 2. let's leave a comment in there about this weirdness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good change. Byte savings on the large gif are good, but it isn't the LCP resource so it's LCP impact is superficial.