3 ms·
> We used the “percentage-rejected” metric minus the false negatives to ballpark the $1.7 million total annual savings. I think this may too sanguine for the f
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> We used the “percentage-rejected” metric minus the false negatives to ballpark the $1.7 million total annual savings.
I think this may too sanguine for the false negatives in that it ignore latency sensitivity. Generally, batch processing (like preview generation during pre-warming) is cheaper than latency sensitive processing (like preview generation when the user is waiting for it). If you don’t take that into account, you can be misled by your cost metrics.
- wsuen 6y agoHi there. Fortunately for the ML team, the Previews team kept a detailed cost breakdown for different preview types - including on the fly generation cost, async generation cost, and cost to serve a preview. Our ballpark accounted for some of the varying costs, though the difference is not significant.