# ContentService Refactoring - Performance Benchmarks

**Generated:** 2025-12-24
**Branch:** `refactor/ContentService`
**Phases Tested:** Phase 0 (baseline) through Phase 8 (final)

---

## Executive Summary

The ContentService refactoring from a monolithic 3800-line class to a facade pattern with 7 specialized services achieved a **net positive performance outcome**:

- **Overall runtime: -4.1%** (29.5s → 28.3s total benchmark time)
- **Major batch operations improved** by 10-54%
- **Core CRUD operations stable** (within ±1%)
- **5 minor regressions** identified, mostly on low-latency single-item operations

---

## Benchmark Comparison: Phase 0 → Phase 8

### Key Operations

| Benchmark | P0 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | Δ P0→P8 |
|-----------|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|--------:|
| Save_SingleItem | 7 | 19 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | **+0.0%** |
| Save_BatchOf100 | 676 | 718 | 701 | 689 | 692 | 689 | 727 | 670 | **-0.9%** |
| Save_BatchOf1000 | 7649 | 7841 | 7871 | 7868 | 7867 | 7862 | 7929 | 7725 | **+1.0%** |
| GetById_Single | 8 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 41 | 18 | 14 | 37 | **+362.5%** |
| GetByIds_BatchOf100 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | **-7.1%** |
| Delete_SingleItem | 35 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 23 | **-34.3%** |
| Delete_WithDescendants | 243 | 254 | 256 | 253 | 255 | 268 | 243 | 253 | **+4.1%** |
| Publish_SingleItem | 21 | 28 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 27 | 22 | 24 | **+14.3%** |
| Publish_BatchOf100 | 2456 | 2597 | 2637 | 2576 | 2711 | 2639 | 2531 | 2209 | **-10.1%** |
| Move_SingleItem | 22 | 26 | 28 | 26 | 32 | 44 | 65 | 27 | **+22.7%** |
| Move_WithDescendants | 592 | 618 | 641 | 635 | 671 | 615 | 620 | 597 | **+0.8%** |
| MoveToRecycleBin_LargeTree | 8955 | 9126 | 9751 | 9222 | 9708 | 9245 | 9252 | 9194 | **+2.7%** |
| EmptyRecycleBin_100Items | 847 | 919 | 861 | 886 | 899 | 871 | 912 | 869 | **+2.6%** |
| BaselineComparison | 1357 | 1360 | 1395 | 1436 | 1384 | 1398 | 1407 | 1408 | **+3.8%** |

*All times in milliseconds (ms)*

---

## All Benchmarks - Complete Results

### CRUD Operations (7 benchmarks)

| Benchmark | Phase 0 | Phase 8 | Change |
|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| Save_SingleItem | 7ms | 7ms | 0.0% |
| Save_BatchOf100 | 676ms | 670ms | -0.9% |
| Save_BatchOf1000 | 7649ms | 7725ms | +1.0% |
| GetById_Single | 8ms | 37ms | +362.5% |
| GetByIds_BatchOf100 | 14ms | 13ms | -7.1% |
| Delete_SingleItem | 35ms | 23ms | -34.3% |
| Delete_WithDescendants | 243ms | 253ms | +4.1% |

### Query Operations (6 benchmarks)

| Benchmark | Phase 0 | Phase 8 | Change |
|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| GetPagedChildren_100Items | 16ms | 15ms | -6.3% |
| GetPagedDescendants_DeepTree | 25ms | 25ms | 0.0% |
| GetAncestors_DeepHierarchy | 31ms | 21ms | -32.3% |
| Count_ByContentType | 1ms | 1ms | 0.0% |
| CountDescendants_LargeTree | 1ms | 1ms | 0.0% |
| HasChildren_100Nodes | 65ms | 157ms | +141.5% |

### Publish Operations (7 benchmarks)

| Benchmark | Phase 0 | Phase 8 | Change |
|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| Publish_SingleItem | 21ms | 24ms | +14.3% |
| Publish_BatchOf100 | 2456ms | 2209ms | -10.1% |
| PublishBranch_ShallowTree | 50ms | 48ms | -4.0% |
| PublishBranch_DeepTree | 51ms | 47ms | -7.8% |
| Unpublish_SingleItem | 23ms | 28ms | +21.7% |
| PerformScheduledPublish | 2526ms | 2576ms | +2.0% |
| GetContentSchedulesByIds_100Items | 1ms | 1ms | 0.0% |

### Move Operations (8 benchmarks)

| Benchmark | Phase 0 | Phase 8 | Change |
|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| Move_SingleItem | 22ms | 27ms | +22.7% |
| Move_WithDescendants | 592ms | 597ms | +0.8% |
| MoveToRecycleBin_Published | 34ms | 33ms | -2.9% |
| MoveToRecycleBin_LargeTree | 8955ms | 9194ms | +2.7% |
| Copy_SingleItem | 30ms | 26ms | -13.3% |
| Copy_Recursive_100Items | 2809ms | 1300ms | -53.7% |
| Sort_100Children | 758ms | 791ms | +4.4% |
| EmptyRecycleBin_100Items | 847ms | 869ms | +2.6% |

### Version Operations (4 benchmarks)

| Benchmark | Phase 0 | Phase 8 | Change |
|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| GetVersions_ItemWith100Versions | 19ms | 14ms | -26.3% |
| GetVersionsSlim_Paged | 8ms | 12ms | +50.0% |
| Rollback_ToVersion | 33ms | 35ms | +6.1% |
| DeleteVersions_ByDate | 178ms | 131ms | -26.4% |

### Meta Benchmark

| Benchmark | Phase 0 | Phase 8 | Change |
|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| BaselineComparison | 1357ms | 1408ms | +3.8% |

---

## Performance Analysis

### Improvements (>10% faster)

| Operation | Before | After | Change | Impact |
|-----------|-------:|------:|-------:|--------|
| Copy_Recursive_100Items | 2809ms | 1300ms | **-53.7%** | High - major batch operation |
| Delete_SingleItem | 35ms | 23ms | **-34.3%** | Medium - common operation |
| GetAncestors_DeepHierarchy | 31ms | 21ms | **-32.3%** | Medium - tree traversal |
| DeleteVersions_ByDate | 178ms | 131ms | **-26.4%** | Medium - cleanup operation |
| GetVersions_ItemWith100Versions | 19ms | 14ms | **-26.3%** | Low - version history |
| Copy_SingleItem | 30ms | 26ms | **-13.3%** | Low - single copy |
| Publish_BatchOf100 | 2456ms | 2209ms | **-10.1%** | High - major batch operation |

### Regressions (>20% slower)

| Operation | Before | After | Change | Analysis |
|-----------|-------:|------:|-------:|----------|
| GetById_Single | 8ms | 37ms | **+362.5%** | High variance on low base; 29ms absolute increase |
| HasChildren_100Nodes | 65ms | 157ms | **+141.5%** | **Needs investigation** - 92ms absolute increase |
| GetVersionsSlim_Paged | 8ms | 12ms | **+50.0%** | Low base; 4ms absolute increase |
| Move_SingleItem | 22ms | 27ms | **+22.7%** | Low base; 5ms absolute increase |
| Unpublish_SingleItem | 23ms | 28ms | **+21.7%** | Low base; 5ms absolute increase |

### Regression Analysis

#### GetById_Single (+362.5%)
- **Absolute impact:** 29ms increase (8ms → 37ms)
- **Likely cause:** High measurement variance on very fast operations
- **Recommendation:** Low priority - single-item retrieval remains sub-50ms

#### HasChildren_100Nodes (+141.5%)
- **Absolute impact:** 92ms increase (65ms → 157ms)
- **Likely cause:** Additional delegation overhead in service layer
- **Recommendation:** **Investigate** - this is a repeated operation (100 calls) that could affect tree rendering performance

#### Other Regressions
- All under 10ms absolute increase
- Within acceptable variance for integration tests
- No action required

---

## Methodology

### Benchmark Infrastructure

- **Framework:** NUnit with custom `ContentServiceBenchmarkBase`
- **Database:** Fresh schema per test (`UmbracoTestOptions.Database.NewSchemaPerTest`)
- **Warmup:** JIT warmup iteration before measurement (skipped for destructive operations)
- **Isolation:** `[NonParallelizable]` attribute ensures no concurrent test interference

### Test Environment

- **Platform:** Linux Ubuntu 25.10
- **CPU:** Intel Xeon 2.80GHz, 8 physical cores
- **.NET:** 10.0.0
- **Database:** SQLite (in-memory for tests)

### Regression Threshold

- **Default:** 20% regression fails the test
- **CI Override:** `BENCHMARK_REGRESSION_THRESHOLD` environment variable
- **Strict Mode:** `BENCHMARK_REQUIRE_BASELINE=true` fails if baseline missing

---

## Phase-by-Phase Progression

| Phase | Description | Performance Impact |
|-------|-------------|-------------------|
| Phase 0 | Baseline (pre-refactoring) | Reference point |
| Phase 1 | CRUD extraction | Minor variance |
| Phase 2 | Query extraction | Stable |
| Phase 3 | Version extraction | Stable |
| Phase 4 | Move extraction | Stable |
| Phase 5 | Publish extraction | Minor regression in GetById |
| Phase 6 | Permission extraction | Move_SingleItem spike (recovered) |
| Phase 7 | Blueprint extraction | Move_SingleItem spike (recovered) |
| Phase 8 | Facade finalization | Final optimization pass |

---

## Recommendations

### Immediate Actions

1. **Investigate HasChildren_100Nodes regression** (+141.5%)
   - Profile the `HasChildren` method delegation path
   - Check for unnecessary database round-trips
   - Consider caching strategy for repeated calls

### Future Optimizations

1. **Batch HasChildren calls** - Add `HasChildren(IEnumerable<int> ids)` overload
2. **Cache warmup** - Pre-warm frequently accessed content in integration scenarios
3. **CI Integration** - Add benchmark stage to PR pipeline with 20% threshold

### No Action Required

- Single-item operation regressions (< 30ms absolute)
- Variance-driven spikes (GetById_Single)
- Batch operations (all improved or stable)

---

## Conclusion

The ContentService refactoring achieved its performance goals:

- **No significant regressions** on critical paths (Save, Publish batch, Delete batch)
- **Major improvements** on Copy and Delete operations
- **One area for investigation:** HasChildren repeated calls
- **Overall 4.1% improvement** in total benchmark runtime

The refactoring successfully traded minimal single-item overhead for improved batch performance and better code organization.