If you ever recorded a load testing scenario on a website you probably noticed that the list of external links can be scary:
Plus these links might occur several times, making your user profile difficult to read.
Because of this even a simple task like separating the different steps into distinct transactions can become tedious:
Every time I work on such tests the question is always the same: "Do we need to simulate these requests?"
Performance testing covers a wide range of different tests. The benefits can vary whether you test a single URL or a complete user journey through the application. It might seem obvious, but to add the most value to your load tests you should make them as realistic as reasonably possible.
Quick and unrealistic load tests often prove useless or even counterproductive. It is often the best way to be overwhelmed with unreliable data.
A realistic load test will allow you to:
During my past years as a tester, I often wondered how to get a higher customer satisfaction. I could go great lengths describing the required skill set and give examples (actually I already did that over here). When actually the truth is much simpler.
It's not rocket science, it's all about preparations and prerequisites.
Over the years, I have worked with a lot of testers. We more or less shared the same views on how to do our jobs and even when all was not going according to the plan.
There's no denying the importance of a performance test campaign in the quality assurance process. But I have lost count of customers requesting load test with no specific objective (or just "improve the performance"). Running a test campaign with no objective in mind is quite risky. You might spend a lot of efforts on useless improvements whereas the critical pain points remain.
I worked on performance campaigns with no objective defined a couple of times. Usually, this implies running tests until you run out of time/budget and optimizing whatever you can. It does not mean these campaigns were not successful, but they probably cost a lot more money than they should have.
You have probably read countless articles about what a good tester is. Of course this is a tricky question and there is no perfect answer. Performance testing requires a mix of technical, organisational and communication skills.
I have seen good technical testers fail to deliver the right message even if they identified the source of all issues.
On the other hand, I have seen performance testers with low technical skills perform very well thanks to their communication.
There is no perfect mix of expertise I would recommend but instead, let's see what the testing challenges are.