Skip to content

Conversation

@def-
Copy link
Contributor

@def- def- commented Nov 5, 2025

Caused by #34021

builtins.AssertionError: Expected materialize/materialized:v0.164.0-dev.0--main.gc28d0061a6c9e63ee50a5f555c5d90373d006686 to be of profile RELEASE, but found OPTIMIZED instead. Consider passing --release or --optimized to mzcompose explicitly. Set CI_IGNORE_BUILD_PROFILE=1 if you don't care about comparability of benchmark results.

Seen in https://buildkite.com/materialize/nightly/builds/13985#019a53a4-7545-4043-8a33-7d85ad85023d

The root cause is that we now use LTO Release builds only for releases + nightly, not for normal test runs. So the tagged runs from test pipeline are all Optimized builds, comparing against them for performance doesn't make sense.

A better fix would be to make Nightly tag the release builds with a special tag, then use those tags in the comparison.

Test run: https://buildkite.com/materialize/nightly/builds/14001

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

Caused by MaterializeInc#34021

> builtins.AssertionError: Expected materialize/materialized:v0.164.0-dev.0--main.gc28d0061a6c9e63ee50a5f555c5d90373d006686 to be of profile RELEASE, but found OPTIMIZED instead. Consider passing `--release` or `--optimized` to `mzcompose` explicitly. Set CI_IGNORE_BUILD_PROFILE=1 if you don't care about comparability of benchmark results.

Seen in https://buildkite.com/materialize/nightly/builds/13985#019a53a4-7545-4043-8a33-7d85ad85023d

The root cause is that we now use LTO Release builds only for releases +
nightly, not for normal test runs. So the tagged runs from test pipeline
are all Optimized builds, comparing against them for performance doesn't
make sense.
@def- def- requested a review from antiguru November 5, 2025 22:47
@def- def- requested a review from a team as a code owner November 5, 2025 22:47
@def- def- requested review from DAlperin and SangJunBak November 5, 2025 22:48
@def- def- enabled auto-merge November 6, 2025 11:02
@def- def- requested a review from martykulma November 6, 2025 22:59
@def-
Copy link
Contributor Author

def- commented Nov 6, 2025

Ready for review, this is currently causing Nightly on main to be red.

Comment on lines 248 to +249
# use the commit instead of the latest release
return (
commit_to_image_tag(override_commit),
f"commit override instead of latest release ({previous_published_version})",
)
# return (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: How soon are we thinking of uncommenting this code? If not soon, feels weird to have no separation between the TODO comment and the commented code itself.

Copy link
Contributor

@SangJunBak SangJunBak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we're just overriding the benchmarks to use tag "None" instead of a specific commit gc28d0061a6c9e63ee50a5f555c5d90373d006686, this looks good to me

@def- def- merged commit c41542c into MaterializeInc:main Nov 7, 2025
132 checks passed
@def- def- deleted the pr-benchmark-override-fix branch November 7, 2025 04:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants