  Configurable software systems can be tuned for better performance. Leveraging
on some Pareto optimizers, recent work has shifted from tuning for a single,
time-related performance objective to two intrinsically different objectives
that assess distinct performance aspects of the system, each with varying
aspirations. Before we design better optimizers, a crucial engineering decision
to make therein is how to handle the performance requirements with clear
aspirations in the tuning process. For this, the community takes two
alternative optimization models: either quantifying and incorporating the
aspirations into the search objectives that guide the tuning, or not
considering the aspirations during the search but purely using them in the
later decision-making process only. However, despite being a crucial decision
that determines how an optimizer can be designed and tailored, there is a
rather limited understanding of which optimization model should be chosen under
what particular circumstance, and why.
  In this paper, we seek to close this gap. Firstly, we do that through a
review of over 426 papers in the literature and 14 real-world requirements
datasets. Drawing on these, we then conduct a comprehensive empirical study
that covers 15 combinations of the state-of-the-art performance requirement
patterns, four types of aspiration space, three Pareto optimizers, and eight
real-world systems/environments, leading to 1,296 cases of investigation. We
found that (1) the realism of aspirations is the key factor that determines
whether they should be used to guide the tuning; (2) the given patterns and the
position of the realistic aspirations in the objective landscape are less
important for the choice, but they do matter to the extents of improvement; (3)
the available tuning budget can also influence the choice for unrealistic
aspirations but it is insignificant under realistic ones.
