3 ms·
I don't think tree maps can do anything that flame graphs can't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36872165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36872165 I
by chubot 3y ago
I don't think tree maps can do anything that flame graphs can't:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36872165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36872165
I think flame graphs can handle more data because they are more trivially zoomed and panned (along one dimension only), and they can stack high as well.
Flame graphs seem to be easier to label. The size of the label itself doesn't distort the visual correspondence, and the bottom levels are easily visible without mouse-over
https://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-02-06/flamegraphs-vs-treemaps-vs-sunburst.html https://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-02-06/flamegraphs-vs-...
- layer8 3y agoI find flame graphs misleading with regard to sizes, because what you primarily perceive as big is the area (width x height), whereas the actual value is just the width. In profiler output, for example, the same time usage can appear bigger or smaller depending on how deep the call graph is nested and on how (non-)"branchy" it is. Flame graphs show useful info, but you have to consciously disregard the area sizes.
- chubot 3y agoYeah I would agree that TreeMaps are more intuitive on first glance. When most people look at a flame graph for the first time, they think the X axis is time, like a time series But it's really the proportion of time (or a space measure) But once you get used to it, flame graphs show all the same info, and IMO it's just as good or nicer