Skip to content

Conversation

@DaveCTurner
Copy link
Contributor

Makes it explicit that for realistic experiments you need to leave many
of the parameters alone: for instance setting ?concurrency=1 is not a
realistic experiment.

Also adjusts the wording slightly to use the imperative voice more.

Makes it explicit that for realistic experiments you need to leave many
of the parameters alone: for instance setting `?concurrency=1` is not a
realistic experiment.

Also adjusts the wording slightly to use the imperative voice more.
@DaveCTurner
Copy link
Contributor Author

Replaces #5221 since we apparently need PRs to come from branches in the main repo here.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2025

Following you can find the validation changes against the target branch for the APIs.

No changes detected.

You can validate these APIs yourself by using the make validate target.

Copy link
Contributor

@szabosteve szabosteve left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thank you!

@DaveCTurner DaveCTurner merged commit 35709d4 into main Sep 2, 2025
14 checks passed
@DaveCTurner DaveCTurner deleted the 2025/09/02/repo-analysis-parameters-docs branch September 2, 2025 08:59
@pquentin
Copy link
Member

pquentin commented Sep 2, 2025

Thanks for opening it using a repository branch! Have you considered changing the Elasticsearch defaults to be more realistic?

@DaveCTurner
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's answered in the docs:

The default values for the parameters are deliberately low to reduce the impact of running an analysis inadvertently and to provide a sensible starting point for your investigations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation skip-backport This pull request should not be backported specification

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants